Template talk:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e Arab-Israeli conflict Riots (1920) – Jaffa riots (1921) – Riots (1929) – Arab revolt (1936–1939) – Civil War (1947-1948) – Arab-Israeli War (1948–1949) – Suez Crisis (1956) – Six-Day War (1967) – War of Attrition (1968–1970) – Yom Kippur War (1973) – South Lebanon conflict (1978) – Lebanon War (1982) – South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000) – First Intifada (1987–1991) – Gulf War (1990–1991) – Second Intifada (2000–ongoing) – Lebanon War (2006)

[edit] Operation Meghdoot

It was an Indo-Pakistani confrontation not part of the other wars listed. See the campaignbox for the Arab-Israeli conflict what's included there --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This one seems fairly sensible; regardless of whether it's an "Indo-Pakistani War" in its own right, it's an operation within the larger "Indo-Pakistani Wars"—and not within any of the wars already listed—and so ought to be linked here. Kirill Lokshin 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few points. Arab Israeli conflict is different from the terminology of the war used for the Ind-Pak scenario. Having said that, Op Meghdoot does NOT encompass the "Siachen War". Since 1984 both countries have fought numerous times during the "Siachen War" and op meghdoot was but one of the battles/operations in this war. If the link to Siachen War is to be added then an article about the war that covers the conflicts of 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 95 and other minor ops and attacks that resulted in loss of territory (in '86-'87). In the line of Cold War the Siachen War should encompass these battles and the Siachen War link should point to Siachen War or Siachen Conflict that includes Op Meghdoot and other ops from both India and Pakistan like Operation Rajiv etc. Idleguy 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

if you have enough information, I support your idea of starting this new article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, having a broader article would be a good thing. Having said that, I think the campaignbox should continue to be labeled as "Indo-Pakistani Wars" rather than "Indo-Pakistani conflict", as I'm pretty sure that the first term is the more commonly used one for the entire broad conflict (although I may very well be wrong on this point). Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If the title is the popularly known "Indo-Pakistani Wars", then Siachen Glacier conflict cannot be used under this title, cuz few sources refer to the Siachen conflict as among the four wars. Take the example of books published by several authors on the Ind-pak wars and you'll find that most refer to the 3 major wars and Kargil (sometimes as a mini-war or the 4th war). not one single credible reference I have come across - leaving websites - have stated Siachen to be a war. If it is not a war by general consensus, then how can it be included under "Indo-Pakistani Wars"? If it is to be included as a conflict, the Indo-pakistani conflicts is again a seldom used name. For now, i'm delinking the Operation Meghdoot from the conflictbox until it is corrected. Disinformation is worse than no information. Idleguy 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Or I think it'd be a slightly better compromise to reword Indo-Pakistani Wars to Indo-Pakistani Wars and conflicts. Only then can Siachen Glacier fit properly as a conflict; again not Operation Meghdoot, which is not a war but akin to a battle. Idleguy 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)