Talk:Siachen conflict

Poor English, unreliable sources, "Pakistan victory"?

The quality of this article seems to have degraded significantly. It cites Indian casualties with some Pakistani nationalist site "pakdef.info" while Pakistani casualties are cited to some non-existent site (the link leads to some music portal for mp3 downloading; no relevance whatsoever). And it calls the result of the conflict a Pakistani victory ("Result: Pakistan victory. Pakistan annex the southern part of siachen while India keep hold of the northern part of siachen"). This is quite a stretch, to put it lightly. The article itself, using valid citations, says that Pakistan lost 2300-2600 sq km of territory that it formerly held and that almost the entire Siachen glacier is under Indian control (70 km long including high ground vs. Pakistan's 5 km). The previous versions of the article say that the conflict resulted in and Indian victory. I'm reverting this article to a previous version that has legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.247.3 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

==The wording seems too Anti-American. Like one example, "maps deliberately show the glacier." That is an opinion, while if the line said "The maps show" this conveys the exact message without injecting one's opinion 99.26.91.7 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)eric

"War in the sky" ?

In a recent Norwegian television documentary on water-related international conflicts it was stated that this conflict is sometimes termed "the war in the sky" or "the war in heaven" (Norw. "Krigen i himmelen"). I have tried to do some Google searches to try and confirm this but I have been unsuccessful. __meco (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Strength of troops posted in Siachen

The TImes article states that both have about 3000 troops in Sachen. [edit] that changed 3000 to 6000 by Hassanhn5 (talk) seems to change this fact. i have reverted the figure back to what has been cited in the source article. regards --dBigXray (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It was driven from the fact that Indian army ordered double the no of outfits as compared to the Pakistan army after they got information through their intelligence source. Fine if you linked a source, but I'll still advice other editors to verify. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that figures in the article need to be supported by reliable sources and not common knowledge or inferences. AshLin (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was from the mentioned source, which said Indian army was sending in double troops as it had knowledge about Pakistani troops. Either the source is self contradicting or the figure was correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The link provided in the reference appears to be dead. The source could not be accessed through the WayBack Machine and neither did search on Times Archive provide the article. Can you provide a live link of the reference? AshLin (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just verified the reference. [1] It was linked to the first paragraph of fighting section of the article (from which I took the previous figures), but after reading the story by the magazine, it doesn't have any thing related to the content, so I'm adding a citation needed tag to it so that some one can find a proper reference. Also, time magazine places the no of Pakistani troops to be 800. I'm fixing the figure too. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• well lTopGunl you are changing the figures and also Disrupting the links so that the citations no longer work. your statement clearly shows that you dont even bother to read the mentioned sources completely , and give lame excuses for your editings that can very well be called Vandalism. Your arguement of Claiming to be editing on Wikipedia:Goodfaith will not work then. I encourage you to read the 3 page article again . it clearly states that Pak ordered 150 and india ordered double that is 300 . it does not mean India has 6000 soldiers. please check it again without reverting and editing Wikipedia articles or you can be blocked again.

AshLin The link is no longer working as Mr lTopGunl have disrupted. i have now repaired the link and the citation. the article states that Both "India and Pakistan have 150 manned outposts along the Siachen Glacier, with some 3,000 troops each." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079528,00.html#ixzz1aYpeKGj3 --dBigXray (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not disrupted any citations. This link was working very well. What ever you 'fixed' still shows 800 troops from Pakistani side:

"The two neighbors nearly waged a full-scale war in 1999 when 800 Pakistani soldiers disguised as militants scaled a 5,100-m-high ridge near Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir and began shelling a major road used by the Indians to supply their Siachen outposts." Read the article before quoting. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear lTopGunl (talk) please discuss it here and leave the administrators to do the editing if any on this article page. yes you have "Deliberately broken " the citations so that they cannot be verified . user AshLin and me both have checked that your editing has done that. if you still disagree you can check your history --dBigXray (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All the citations were working perfectly fine in my final edit. I've just tested them from the history. Stop trying to deviate from topic.

The story from times has a clash with its own text stating the figure to be 800 on the first page. Another source is needed.

Administrators are not the only people who can edit articles. If you're not familiar with wikipedia's policies, read WP:BOLD. And donot turn this discussion into a flame war, refer to WP:Civility. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that 1TopGun1 has some kind of permitted access for the links he is adding but the links are not accessible to the common editor hence his information is unverifiable even if correct. Disagreeing with your edits on this ground of broken link and unverifiable text does not constitute a flame war. AshLin (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png

According to the image File:Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png, Jammu and Kashmir is not claimed by Pakistan. I don't think this is true, and Pakistan seems to claim the territory. So the image should be changed.VR _talk 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that, the image should be edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced it with Image:Kashmir 2007.svg.VR _talk 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

15000 casualities??....That's not even the strength!

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 am very amazed to find 15000 casualties on the Indian side.That is not even the strength of the Armed Forces.Morever, the source is an agricultural book and I donot understand how casualties of a war would be mentioned in it.I also see that the editor removed the casualties of Pakistan but placed 15000 casualties on Indian Side.Srikar Kashyap (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed a nice review of my edit. I undid addition of unsourced figures (that was added just before my edit) along with adding sourced figure. And I was just about to add an explanation in the body. If you have a sourced figure for Pakistan's casualties please add it. Now coming to the point, the strength of Indian troops is the number of troops at Siachen glacier at a time, and casualty figure gives the number of troops died since 1984. I hope it helps you understand it. About the source, it is a book on Global warming & environment and since Siachen conflict is adversely affecting the environment of the region, the book is very much related to it. --SMS ^Talk 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK...But 15000 is quite a large number and I think more sources are needed to support it.Or else, unknown is better.Do you have any other sources than that book to prove 15000 casualities?.Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@SMS Are you kidding me? Using figures of Casualty at Military frontline at Siachen from the book A Textbook of Agricultural Extension Management- By K.R. Gupta , This source for the mentioned content of Indian casualty can not be considered as a reliable source please revert your edit or bring a better source.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@Srikarkashyap probably you missed informing User:Darkness Shines and User:JCAla.

@DBigXray Have you even looked at the source? Read my reply above? Do some research before simply disagreeing to something on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Read the name of the book on its cover. --SMS ^Talk 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@SMS-You have NO RIGHT to talk about my edits.Don't act too smartly.That's my wish.You don't sensor whom I inform.You can also happily inform your friend, TopGun.Don't try to divert the matter.Srikar Kashyap (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

<You have no right to tell me who is my friend and who can I inform. And yes I have the right to talk about your inappropriate edits. And don't try to make a simple misunderstanding into a full blown issue. --SMS ^Talk 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple misunderstanding?..please can you explain what do you mean by that? Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding that casualty figure cannot increase the troops stationed at a place at a time. --SMS ^Talk 16:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Relax guys dont act silly here,first I would request both of you to strike off lines that is considered impolite and mud slinging from above. Also i do not appreciate taking names of another editors un-necessarily here, Lets just focus on the content and the source. now about the book I have already seen the book and the corresponding line, and i am still saying that it is not a reliable source for this piece of information. this is not wp:IDONTLIKE but a question of wp:RS-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Srikar Kashyap, I've dropped you a note on how to go about editing. Please do not invite users who share (or might share) your point of view to a debate like this. This is usually reported to administrators and is a blockable offense. I was the first one to actually notice this, and see SMS's explanation on his talk page, it was clarified. There's no discrepancy here. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• We very well know what book we are talking about I agree that the figure in question was mentioned here in article as a casualty figure since 1984 but to quote a specific number in such an important article it needs to be properly sourced. and the book on agriculture is probably not the book you should be reading to find the number of dead on the line of control-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to see the source book as you were referring it as a book on Agriculture and I see you still are saying the same. Can you explain by quoting text from WP:RS as to how this source is not reliable? --SMS ^Talk 17:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you first clarify please that this [2] Titled A Textbook of Agricultural Extension Management by K.R. Gupta is the book you referred above ? also clarify is it not a book on agriculture ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This (Title: Global Warming (Encyclopaedia of Environment)) is the book I am referring to (that is why I requested to see the cover of the book or for more detail see the contents of the book). And it is not a book on agriculture as it discusses global warming and other environmental issues rather than agriculture. --SMS ^Talk 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The content as I see is clearly sourced from [3] by K.R. Gupta which seems to be on Global warming (or agriculture) which makes this book unsuitable for its use as a Primary source for claiming the military casualty figures of 15,000. Unless we have a proper reliable sourced figure whose authenticity can be confirmed the Casualty figure should remain as "unknown" wiki articles are not a place to harbor unsourced claims specially on something as sensitive as this Casualty figure. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since majority of the casualties are from the climatic condition of the area rather than in a military battle, so that is why the source (which discusses the climate of the region) is very much relevant and suitable here. --SMS ^Talk 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

so you are basically arguing that if the death is by earthquake its ok to use the figure of casualty from Green Peace rather than the official or formal (read reliable) sources? is it ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on void arguments. You clearly are arguing on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further sources for you: [4], Casualty rate of Indians is 4 times higher than Pakistani troops. --SMS ^Talk 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May i ask the expected courtesy of giving the fellow editor the page number of the relevant information in your source? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Here you go: (Page 2, Section: The limits of efforts and endurance, Page 14, first para). --SMS ^Talk 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for your reply, I have seen both the sources

1. paper by Aamir Ali pg 2 last para does not clarify how he reached the magic number (or wild guess ? )of 15,000 Casualty and there is still no source supporting the figure of 15,000.
2. Page 14, first para has given the source of the "4 times higher" claim from globalsecurity.org. which is clearly not acceptable here another thing to note is global security gives its own number of casualty , which cannot be relied upon as global security is not considered wp:RS

Both these refs are useless as far as this wiki article is concerned-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not editwar. The fact that I reverted to a version means that the consensus has changed. See WP:CONSENSUS. There's no "consensus version" of the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

TopGun Do not restore the wrong version, and you cannot claim consensus just by your own opinion, i dont see it so far. Besides do not accuse me of edit warring while you do the reverts(edit war) and show complete disregard to this discussion here and claim your own imaginary consensus. I have stated my points clearly above, reply to it-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the one claiming consensus here. If you think the version is wrong, other editors already think it is right. See WP:The Wrong Version. Clear your concept about consensus from WP:CONSENSUS. A revert already means changing consensus. Also you've reverted two editors... so.. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to let the casualties remain as unknown till a consensus on a reputable source is reached.However, User:AshLin has given two credible sources.

• [[5]] unrelated link
• [blogs.tribune.com.pk]

Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol @credible sources (an AMD support page and a blog). @DBigXray You clearly have a wrong understanding of WP:RS. No one in this world can provide sources you are asking for. --SMS ^Talk 13:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• @TopGun I dont see where have i claimed consensus? the matter is in discussion with no consensus achieved so far, and you unilaterally decided to claim consensus and decide to revert and then go a step furthur and blame me for edit warring, great
• @Srikar both your links are useless for this article.
• @SMS so far we do not have a source for 15,000 claim, which effectively means it will not be added to this wiki article, Wiki articles are not a place to put such poorly sourced figures/ you are of course free to raise the issue further. regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry..I added the wrong link...this is the correct link I intended to give
• [[6]] Srikar Kashyap (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• @srikar the 7th link (rediff) you mentioned above seems to mention combined casualty, hence unsuitable for the infobox, as we need clear individual casualty of the two sides for the infobox.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Xray! No....click on next....in the next page...it even gives estimated casualties of both the sides individually. Srikar Kashyap (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• ok the link says According to unofficial figures, Also on furthur searching I have found [7] saying 2100 Indian Casualty which also supported by [8] -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• The pakistani casualties reportedly varies between 3000 and 8000 as reported in Pakistani news papers, But they also write that these are Unofficial figures.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both the governments do not release official data about casualties.However, I think unofficial estimates can be considered provided two or more sources give the same number. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• two or more sources can be found for any casualty figure. We need to differentiate between opinions/blogs vs proper sources and give preference to a reliable figure which could then be added to infobox, this is an important figure which cannot be poorly sourced. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah..sorry for adding that blog link...I didn't notice it.So let it be unknown until we find more sources.Let SMS and TopGun also tell their opinions. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: to the editors The discussion has been started on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Siachen_Casualty_Figure on the issue of 15,000 (SMS should have informed here, but i am doing it on his behalf)-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• First I am not bound to inform. Had you people discussed this whole issue in good faith, I would have informed you. --SMS ^Talk 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• So you decided to quietly sneak out to wp:RSN without informing, what a pity that it did not work out-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Smsarmad refrain from edit the page without consensus, you are the one who had started the discussion [[9]] can't you just wait?--sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No I cannot wait. I can withdraw from my stand whenever I want and I just did it. Now stop edit warring I just undid my own edit and removed the source that was called an unreliable source multiple times. Actually your revert makes me think that you just want to edit war, if I had called that source unreliable you people must be calling it reliable. So please carry on, I am off this place. --SMS ^Talk 09:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smsarmad under the section Severe conditions you had again added the 15,000 casualty figure in your previous edit --sarvajna (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the unreliable source now --sarvajna (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I undid it but it all messed up. Seems like you cleared the mess now. Thanks and Sorry! --SMS ^Talk 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• SMS from your "struck off" comment it seems you need to ponder what wp:RS is, a source does not magically become reliable or unreliable if you or me call it reliable or unreliable. It is by the virtue of the source. Also from your comment above its clear that you lack faith in other editors. in order to edit in such controversial cases consensus is a must. regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

New additions by User Ahsanch12345

User Ahsanch12345, has made some contribution which are alear POV content. Ahsanch12345, you can discuss here before you make any additions. --sarvajna (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Result

I added a source which says "The army bitterly resented the loss of Siachen glacier in 1984 and since then had devoted considerable resources to devising a means of regaining the territory" Smsarmad accuse me of source falsification again and I will seek sanctions against you for your persistent personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an ongoing conflict and both sides' active forces are still deployed there, to say that one side won or lost based on a loss/gain of a territorial region is source falsification. --SMS ^Talk 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, refrain from your personal attacks. India took the glacier, hence it was a victory per the source. Just because Pakistan is still trying to get it back does not mean it is a stalemate, they are still trying to get Kashmir back as well, which funnily enough is another war they lost. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, where is your source to claim a stalemate? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the discussion on content, source you provided doesn't say that India won the *conflict* or vice versa for Pakistan. Besides here are the sources which say it is a stalemate:

• P R Chari (2007). Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 978-0815713838. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Robert G. Wirsing (1991). Pakistan's Security Under Zia. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 158. ISBN 978-0312060671.
• Edward W. Desmond. "War at the Top of the World". Foreign Correspondent: Fifty Years of Reporting South Asia. Viking Books. p. 157. ISBN 978-0670082049.
• Greg Child. Thin Air: Encounters in the Himalaya. Mountaineers Books. p. 162. ISBN 978-0898865882.
• Beckwith, Christian, ed. (2001). "Climbs and Expeditions: Pakistan". The American Alpine Journal. Mountaineers Books: 367. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Hans Binnendijk (1997). Strategic Assessment 1997: Flashpoints And Force Structure. Diane Publishing. p. 126. ISBN 978-0788146480. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Ashutosh Misra (2000). Siachen Glacier flashpoint: A study of Indian Pakistani relations. University of Durham. p. 19.

--SMS ^Talk 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first source mentions the ongoing dispute as being in a stalemate, not the initial Indian seizure of the glacier. Same with the second. Third source says "Pakistan responded to late to push out the Indians and lost 1000 sq miles" And it's mention of stalemate is about the ongoing arguments. I am not going to bother looking at sources 3,4&5, as they are not RS. I am unable to view 6 but I have no doubt it says the ongoing political bitching is at a stalemate, much as the rest of your sources do. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The first source says: "... the two parties remain at a military and political stalemate." I can go on quoting others but it seems that you are only interested in pushing your POV, so I won't waste my time here. --SMS ^Talk 08:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what it says, use your common sense. Any stalemate currently is due to the fact the Pakistan has failed in their attempts to dislodge the Indian military presence. The initial Indian operation lead to a victory, it is still a victory as they have held the ground. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is ongoing, taking most of the Glacier has not ended the conflict, until the conflict has been formally ended by the 2 countries. You cannot declare the result based on your perspective and back it up using an Indian source which may also be subject to bias. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a ceasefire in 2003. As long as the source is reliable and specifically stating the results, it is worth it to use, there is nothing wrong in using "Indian" or any other source unless they are WP:PRIMARY. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My edit changing the info box from "Result: Indian Victory" to Status: Ceasefire" was just reverted, and I was directed to the talk page to get "consensus". I do not see consensus here that the claim India has been Victorious appropriate and neutral point of view. Stating that there is a ceasefire is a neutral unbiased statement, and is objectively true. Claiming India has won this battle that has not yet ended is not neutral, it is subjective, and it is a tenuous point to argue. I don't see how anyone can disagree with the fact that there was a ceasefire. In fact we have consensus that there is a ceasefire. What we don't have is consensus that India won. As such I'm putting my edit back. Please leave it until we have consensus that the conflict is over, and has a winner. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Keithonearth: If you are talking about age old above discussion then kindly click on those users, most of above users are confirmed sock puppets. We are going by reliable sources. If you want to start new discussion then start it here, but don't remove long standing text from article unless there is confirmed consensus to remove that text. For example you can see old versions of this article version of April 2014. This has been part of article since years. You can't delete such text without consensus, and above 2012 discussion is not valid now, specially when most of above are sock puppets and POV pushers. So I'm restoring original version. Moreover, if ceasefire is happened in 2003 then how conflict is "ongoing"? With that logic war of 1947, 1965 and 1999 should also be "ongoing". The source given for "ongoing" is highly unreliable. Moreover infobox itself mentions that "India gained entire Siachen glacier" and we have sources for that. --Human3015 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If the conflict is over and done with, then it should say so in the article. At present the article states the conflict is ongoing, and goes on to contradict itself with the assertion that India was the victor. The article needs to be edited so that it doesn't contradict itself. Do you seriously suggest that the ceasefire marks the end of the conflict? --Keithonearth (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Keithonearth: You can read articles of other indo-pakistani wars, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Kargil War, in every case "ceasefire" was the result. An those wars are "ended" now. But conflict over territory of Kashmir is still ongoing, its not just about Siachen glacier, its about entire Kashmir region. If proper dialog between governments of India-Pakistan doesn't takes place then you will see this conflict "ongoing" even after 200 years from now. Pakistan claims entire Jammu and Kashmir, you can see status of Kashmir conflict its still "ongoing" but wars have ended(ceasefired). You can read 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes which are ongoing, its not in particularly in Siachen region, these skirmishes are all around Line of Control and international border. In real sense conflict is "ongoing" for entire region since 1947. As far as Siachen conflict is concerned, ceasefire was done in 2003. --Human3015 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, you are wrong here. A conflict cannot be calssed as a victory of one side until it is over. As shown by RFC at the main article this should be shown as disputed, and anything disputed is not a victory. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Kindly provide sources for your claim. Entire Kashmir is disputed. And it is disputed only according to Pakistan, not according to India or UN. So stop pushing national agenda here please. Earlier RfC is failed as "not-clear consensus". --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC failed? hmm well lets see. "There is rough consensus that in some way the infobox should recognise the region is disputed. What form this will take showed no consensus. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)" is written at the top of RFC.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You discuss it on that article. Read discussion in another section too. See you on talk page of Siachen glacier.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed??

Some people claiming here "consensus" but I see no "consensus" here. Faizan is also agree with me.(as he said so in his edit summary). So to write controversial lines in infobox kindly establish consensus first. There is "consensus" for "Controlled by India, disputed yby Pakistan" on Siachen glacier article but Faizan is denying it. Anyway, don't involve in edit war, article is under discreationary sanctions. Assume good faith, otherwise we all will get blocked. There is no use of debating with some users, so I will involve some strict admins in this matter, they will decide. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK  10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Calm down, everyone. @Human3015 You have already made three reverts, don;t make the next one, or it will be a breach of 3RR. We should start discussion here. I am open to it. Faizan (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was an RfC on Siachen Glacier, where the result was "Controlled by India, disputed by Pakistan". Siachen Glacier and Siachen conflict are very closely related. We should discuss here now prior to any edit to this article, or it will lead to further reverts and eventually block. When the conflict is still "ongoing", how can it result in the victory of a single side? Clashes still occur. Faizan (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The parent article for this and all other siachen related articles is Siachen Glacier. The TP of that article has the RFC and the consensus where it was decided to add "disputed" to the article. The RFC is here. I see that one of the first comments was made by you. Now I don't want to assume bad faith on your part so perhaps you are just very very very "forgetful" (pun intended), or perhaps more than one person is controlling your account and you guys don't tell each other what you have done while logged one, Multiple personality disorder is also on the table, but seems a bit far fetched at the moment. Feel free to involve the same strict admins you blocked you every time you tried to vandalize articles related to PAkistan/India. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, so neutral editor Faizan then why you reverted my this edit which was neither showing "India as vicotrious" and was rightly showing "Controlled by India and disputed by Pakistan"? --Human3015^TALK  10:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because your wording was very very ambiguos. Anyway, there is consensus, and you hae been pointed towards it. no need to carry on holding the stick. Have a good day and good bye. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling me a neutral editor now? Before you called me a Paki POV warrior! is that sarcasm? Why do you simply revert the posts on your talk? Was it vandalism? Faizan (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you bother not to reply to productive discussions. Faizan (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Faizan talk about this issue. My edit was saying "Ceasefire" and "Controlled by India and disputed by Pakistan", what was wrong in it? You just reverted me because you like to revert me without any reason, but your this habit made you blocked once though it was by mistake. Anyway, my edit was neutral. Can you read what is written in result section currently? "Disputed by Pakistan" is that a "result" of war? Are you newbie?? Do we write "disputed by Pakistan" in "result" section?? --Human3015^TALK  11:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 how about calming down a little bit and speaking coherently? I've moved the claimed and disputed text to territory section. No need to get all riled up about it to be frank. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note - following this discussion, Human3015 followed me to Mohammad Ali Jinnah and reverted by general image fix there. He reverted my edit on his talk where I wanted to discuss the image revert. How one can decide unilaterally that which image is better? Faizan (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you forgot that, that page is on my watchlist. Ok, well try to leave main point and to hide your blunder edit on this page which can lead you to topic ban. --Human3015^TALK  11:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, calm down, I hope we will not meet anymore on Wikipedia. I thought our rifts have been over. Anyway, I am also not editing Indo-Pak articles much these days, I am interested in general topics. I hope better for you people, try to be civil and assume good faith. Bye. --Human3015^TALK  11:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BRD or consensus don't work like this. There should be actual consent by the parties, if there is no consensus then previous version is preferred. As long as it is not misrepresenting the sources, I have reverted to the earlier version. Since India holds Siachen, conflict was won by India. Conflict is not actually ongoing, you can prove this to be incorrect if you have actual source where Pakistan has officially declared war against India on Siachen. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 Don't disrupt the resolution here. The parties to this discussion were me, Human and Freeatlast. And we have agreed on that version. Now, it's up to you to seek consensus. Faizan (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

One cannot be victorious if the war is still ongoing. The fate has yet to be decided. We extensively discussed the RfC in question and according to that RfC, only this version has got consensus here. Faizan (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4your reply makes zero sense. I mean literally zero. Perhaps you wanted to say something and your English is so poor you could not get it across, perhaps there is some other reason. Anyway, the RFC shows that there should be disputed written in the infobox and such has been written. You can explain your .....er..."views" if you want, but otherwise this matter is overFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reset the debate

Faizan is right that no further edits should be made to the infobox until consensus is reached here. While the debate is ongoing, the pre-dispute version should stay. It seems to be the case at the moment with this edit [10]. Thanks Praveenp. Can I ask FreeatlastChitchat and Faizan to make the case for changing the Result entry? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3.

Faizan: Where is the source? Conflict is not ongoing, if you have source that there is some official war between the two countries you can present it. There was ceasefire in 2003. Many sources support victory.[11][12]

FreeatlastChitchat: I would ask you to provide the source of your opinion. There is no reason to omit the "victory", unless you have source for your claim that there is no victory because conflict is ongoing. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4 you continue to make zero sense. I mean literally zero sense. Ceasefire does not mean anyone's victory, only a complete lack of common sense will be required to equate ceasefire with victory. You have given two highly UNRELIABLE sources which are basically Indian rhetoric. Anyway long story short 'Infobox does not say that there is an official war going on, it merely says that there is a Ceasefire and no one was victorious and that territory is disputed, a RFC has already established that disputed should be added. If you want to add an Indian victory show us which treaty Pakistan signed as her defeat.' There I put it in bold so we can move away from this time sink debate and suspiciuos accounts with less than 500 edits who "just happened" to come across this page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Note the underlined sections of the following quote and then we can discuss the key points it highlights:

"The military stalemate is seen in Pakistan as a victory because neither side can claim to have ousted the other from disputed territory. A more important motive for Pakistan to continue the conflict is to avenge its initial military reverses. All that Pakistan seems to be interested in is to put unbearable pressure on India in terms of human and financial cost.."

(Source: Siachen Glacier flashpoint: a study of Indian Pakistani relations, Ashutosh Misra. https://books.google.ca/books?id=UB5uAAAAMAAJ&q=siachen+glacier+pakistan+victory&dq=siachen+glacier+pakistan+victory&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y.)

The key points from this quote:

1. Neither side controls all of Siachin
2. Pakistan suffered the initial military reverses
3. The status quo favored Pakistan
4. The description used was "stalemate" (note the date of publication, only a couple of years before the ceasefire, and not much changed in the intervening time.)

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We got a case of WP:GAMING and WP:IDONTLIKE here. These sources including those that have been seen on the main article are highly reliable. Orient Blackswan, Lancer books are reliable sources. We state what sources say, not you. Which wikipedia guideline or policy says that you need 500 or 50,000 edits to edit this article or talk page? It can be edited even if your account has no edits. You have already failed to provide a single source for your personal opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Above message meant for FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 As far as I can see, your sources don't say exactly what you're claiming. One of them is describing the "hardline position" in India domestically, while the other source is saying that even though there was a military victory, it has been very costly to India, which can be interpreted as a tactical success but not a strategic victory. Neither source you listed is claiming India has won a "strategic victory" (the technical term for "winning" in military literature), both are qualifying their remarks regarding India's tactical gains in this conflict, and it seems to me that you are ignoring those qualifications. Both of your sources actually seem to correlate exactly with the statements in the source that I posted and its "key points". cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You realize that my point was to mention that there was a victory. What is the actual line you are going to propose? Because result as "Ceasefire since 2003" seems rather incomplete and not correct representation of outcome of conflict. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Code16 Note that the Ashutosh Misra paper is an unpublished "working paper." It is not a reliable source. It is also out of date. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 I'm trying to make you realize that this real-world situation does not fit into the neat little box you're trying to force it into. In warfare and geopolitics the outcomes are not always clear, and this is clearly one of those cases. Your own sources are telling you that India might have gotten some real-estate, but the costs for it have been very high, which is exactly what my source is telling you (which is also an Indian author it seems.) So even if Indian authors are not claiming a strategic victory, due to the costs and the fact that the status quo favors Pakistan, then you can't fit this outcome into a neat little "victory/defeat" result.

0

I think you're mistaken, the publication information states that it was published in June 2000 by Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Issue 65 of Durham Middle East papers by the  University of Durham. It's available for citations in multiple locations for researchers e.g. the Stanford library has it (http://catalog.stanford.edu/view/4494377). And it's publication date is very significant for this discussion as it wasn't too before the ceasefire. Besides, my argument is that D4iNa4's sources actually coraborate the information that my source has provided. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb!  15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• comment: Some editors are claiming that there is "RFC" done for whatever written currently in infobox. This is completetly wrong. RFC at Siachen glacier was done to write word "disputed" in infobox of that glacier, that RFC was not done to decide "result" of the conflict, so it seems there is no consensus for current version of result which is inserted by some nationalist editors which is now opposed by many neutral uninvolved editors. I think we should restore pre-dispute version stating "Indian victory" and new RFC should be done to decide "result" of the conflict. --Human3015^TALK  15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015, you are labeling everyone on one side as "nationalist" while your own side you're claiming is neutral, so obviously I highly doubt the neutrality of your own assessment. At the end of the day 3 of the editors here disagree with your position, so I don't see any overwhelming numbers favoring you. Finally, I think the sourced argument I've presented above precludes the possibility of any arbitrary changes to the status-quo for now, as I'm pretty sure it's a strong case against labeling the result of the conflict a simple "victory" for either side. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am saying as per my experience with those editors, I am not insisting to keep "Indian victory" version, I am just saying to keep "pre-dispute" version and start a RFC. Whats wrong in it?? --Human3015^TALK  16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You said we should restore the "indian victory" (implying a strategic victory) version which is inaccurate, ignores the qualifications, and simply not supported by the sourced facts (not even from the one presented by your side.) I recommend we apply for the "formal dispute resolution" option (I think that's what it's called), which deals with more complex issues between multiple editors. The RfC is for more specific disputes (AFAIK), and there are multiple sources/arguments that require analysis in this case. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I said to restore pre-dispute version, even if we go for WP:DRN in that case also we are suppose to restore pre-dispute version till dispute resolves. And whatever you are talking about sources is very common thing on Wikipedia, Pro-pakistani nationalist editors claim every source as unreliable which goes against Pakistan's interest, same applies to Pro-Indian nationalist editors who claim every source as unreliable which is against India's interest. So this debate is useless here, because as per my experience all involved editors here either have Indian or Pakistani background, even some of them exclusively known for nationalistic editing. So no use of debating this issue here between apparently Indian and Pakistani editors. RFC can bring non-Indian, non-Pakistani editors here and they can give nice opinion by examining sources. So only best thing we can do it to restore "pre-dispute" version and start a RFC.--Human3015^TALK  17:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015 First of all, I'll ask again, please stop generalized labeling of editors (your personal experiences are irrelevant.) Secondly, I have not claimed unreliability of any sources presented by either side. My argument is questioning the conclusions that the other side is drawing from its own sources, and adding another source to the mix which makes the matter clearer. I still recommend that we go to WP:DRN. As for restoring any previous versions, I'll let other editors figure out which version is considered "pre-dispute" as I was not involved in the history of this. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Code16 I am also saying same thing to restore pre-dispute version before going to WP:DRN. It does not matter if pre-dispute version is right or wrong because it is not proved yet. Individual editors can have their opinion for some view. --Human3015^TALK  18:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we might not even have to go to WP:DRN, see below. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If a prior RFC does not specifically mention this article or is not a general RFC (e.g., "infoboxes about war X should state that Y had a marginal victory" or "X is to be renamed Y"), it can be used as guidance but generally should not be pointed to as determining consensus for this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - As we all know, the India-Pakistan disputes get caught up in endless semantic debates, where little words have big meanings. Hence, I think the infobox shouldn't say "Indian victory" unless there is a high-quality reliable source that says exactly that. The Paul Kapur source is not saying that. So, unless somebody else can produce some other source, "Indian victory" goes. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 We have to restore pre-dispute version before going for WP:DRN. Rest of discussion regarding reliability of sources can be done on WP:DRN. There is no harm in restoring pre-dispute version specially when it was very long standing version. Indivudual opinions are welcomed on WP:DRN because no one has special ownership over content, so restoring pre-dispute version will be a good idea. --Human3015^TALK  18:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not yet ripe to go to WP:DRN. The debate here is continuing. No source has yet been provided for "Indian victory" as far as I can see. So it doesn't make sense to go to DRN yet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now that is good reason that you gave, but your earlier reason was not valid "to not restore pre-dispute version". Yes, debate is open and we are debating it. If in any case issue goes to WP:DRN then we have to restore pre-dispute version till dispute get resolved. All dispute started because some editor added some content to article, so we should restore version prior to that before going to WP:DRN. --Human3015^TALK  18:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with Kautilya3: I think this is a wise suggestion for such a complex dispute involving the outcome of a military engagement. None of the sources presented thus far award either side with a clear strategic victory, as has been pointed out. Unless such a source is presented, the status quo should hold. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Code16 Are you serious? Do you think that keeping result "ceasefire" is "status quo"? It means you are making this debate as "India vs Pakistan". On Wikipedia, "status quo" means keeping "pre-dispute" version. This is not battlefield. --Human3015^TALK  19:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you wish, I'm supporting the opinion that reverting to the "indian victory" version is not merited, given the sources and the arguments. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Code16: That is your opinion as one of party of dispute. Every disputant thinks that version of his/her choice should be restored while RFC or WP:DRN going on, but sorry, we restore pre-dispute long standing version in such cases, I will again say it does not matter that version is right or wrong, just to keep "status quo" we restore "Pre-dispute" version. --Human3015^TALK  19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly not just my opinion, in fact, right now only you are claiming otherwise. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not matters how many people agree on something as long as all are disputants. We have to restore pre-dispute version before going to WP:DRN, now please close this DRN matter for now. You can ask any admin regarding this "pre-dispute" version thing if you don't believe in my words. It was long standing version. Better you talk about content and leave DRN and "Pre-dispute" for now. But just keep in mind that we have to restore "pre-dispute" version if matter goes to WP:DRN till dispute gets resolved. --Human3015^TALK  19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

??? Im talking about the content not the DRN. Lets just stick to the proposal below. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Such a long and time wasting debate. Ceasefire means that war is ongoing and it has been "temporarily" stopped. User talk:Human3015 you can use a dictionary if your comprehension of English is not enough to grasp this simple fact. Kautilya3 your suggestion has also mixed up "territorial changes" with "result". You can look at any other war you want, any other war to be frank. And there you will find that no one has mentioned "territorial changes". To be frank why the hell are we using a 'Result' Parameter when the actual parameter should be 'Status'? I see that a couple of guys are in the delusion that the conflict is not ongoing, well these RELAIBLE sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 would like to disagree. According to [WP:Burden] any text going into the article must be sourced by the guys who want to put it in. So basically anyone who wants to claim that siachen conflict is 'OVER' must present sources which say so, reliable sources too, not just Indian rhetoric. As the conflict is ongoing the Parameter used will be status. As for the territorial changes, I completely agree with the proposal that captured/controlled/(any other word play on this) by India and disputed/claimed/(any other synonym) by Pakistan is appropriate.:FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

If the "Indian victory" version cannot be supported, then I would propose a wording like: Ceasefire sine 2003; Siachen Glacier comes under Indian control; Continues to be disputed by Pakistan. This is close enough to the previous RfC wording that I am hoping that people can agree on it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Whatevr you wrote is already there in infobox, read both "result" and "territorial changes" section. I will again say that RFC was for Siachen glacier, it was not done to determine outcome of the Siachen conflict.--Human3015^TALK  19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem in adding "disputed by Pakistan" as RFC has been done for that, but it may need another RFC to determine outcome of the conflict.--Human3015^TALK  19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right. The territorial changes entry is too wordy and unmemorable. My second and third clauses can replace it, I think. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with proposal. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Some people here claiming that "conflict" is still going on. Ok. "Conflict" is still going on means what exactly still going on?? Is there any active war going on between two nation? Does both countries have declared that they are on war? We can say that "dispute" is still going on (not war), Pakistan can keep on claiming Siachen and Kashmir till day of Qayamat, no question about that, but just because Pakistan says something we can't write it here. Same applies for Indian view. If some kind of war is still going on then why "ceasefire" is written in result section. We should write "on going" in "Result" section if conflict is still going on.--Human3015^TALK  20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us not go back to old arguments. Let us move forward. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015 If the status of this conflict confuses you, refer to other similar outcomes where the conflict is not active and a truce has been signed. Sometimes this state goes on for generations. Here's a famous an example: Korean_War. They ceased-fire in Korea and an armistice ("an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time.") was reached, and remains in effect to this day. I don't know why you are so surprised by this, it's a pretty common thing in history. Actually, I think it's way more common than the outright decisive strategic victories, which are quite rare. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)