Talk:Siachen conflict

message: While the Indian casualty number is from 1984 to present, there is no information about Pakistani casualties during the same time interval. Therefore it must be mentioned so otherwise it presents a skewed picture.
Also, Indian casualties during 1984 are mentioned but Pakistan's casualties are not mentioned although they use the same citations. The same citation clearly shows that 200 Pakistani soldiers were killed in 1984.
Moreover, there are no citations to prove the Pakistani casualties from 2003 to 2010. The citations provided in the column make no mention of Pakistani casualties during that period. One useless citation that talks of only Indian casualties are used in citing Pakistani casualties.
Therefore if Indian casualties during 1984 conflict is mentioned then that of Pakistan must also be mentioned.By Trojanishere (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pakistani Casualties are not complete

message: 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)
thread_title: Poor English, unreliable sources, "Pakistan victory"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  "War in the sky" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree with that, the image should be edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced it with Image:Kashmir 2007.svg.VR talk 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  New additions by User Ahsanch12345 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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.--Human3015TALK  19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Human3015TALK  19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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.--Human3015TALK  20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let us not go back to old arguments. Let us move forward. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  @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)

text: 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" within the Result Parameter. 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)
replies: text:  Better you don't talk about English of other people, we all know how pissed off your English is with your pissed off vocabulary. Anyway, Result section of 1947, 65 and 99 wars says "ceasefire" in result section, so as per your logic those wars are still on going?--Human3015TALK  03:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  your first sentence has made no sense. I know you are very poor in your grasp of English language but what does that sentence mean only you can tell. I think even if we bring a hundred other guys they will not be able to make sense of your first sentence and will consider is gibbersih, did you just take a random diff and then post it here? What does pissed off english even mean? Did you want to copy past something from google and that diff was already on your clipboard? Please be kind enough to explain your nonsensical opening in your reply. Now I have presented a lot of sources which say the conflict is ongoing, time for you to present sources which say it ended. Simple as that, let me bold it up for you, 'Show us which neutral, RS says that siachen conflict is over'.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Why go to DRN when I (and others I am sure) are ready to accept your text if you are kind enough to 'Show us which neutral, RS says that siachen conflict is over'. Yes I bolded it up again, just so that it grabs your attention. I fail to see any personal attack here, I'm sure you will be able to point out the personal element in this request in your next reply. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have not yet answered my previous question, result section of 1947, 65 and 99 wars says "ceasefire", so these wars are still on going or over? You should not confuse conflict/dispute with word "war". There is no currently declared war in Siachen is going on, only dispute or claim over this territory is going on. As I said in one of my earlier comment that Pakistan can claim or dispute glacier till day of Qayamat or beyond that, but there is no declared war is going on, if you think that any declared war is going on in this region then please provide sources for that, you are the one who added these edits. As of now there is no war going on between India and Pakistan, only ceasefire violations on random sites at LoC are going on.--Human3015TALK  04:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ahve already provided EIGHT sources which say that 'CONFLICT IS ONGOING'. Did you fail to read them? I mean they are right there smack dab in the middle of my reply, nicely arranged from 1 to eight with links. What prevents you from reading them? Here let me list them again, I'll just copy paste and bold it up for you so you can see it right away. 'Sources are here which say conflict is ongoing' 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. All these guys say the conflict is ongoing, so where are your sources which say that the conflict has ended? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have not read my previous comment, you are yet to provide source for any declared war in this region. Anyway, what problem you have with WP:DRN? If you think that you are right then why you are worrying? Instead we can get some better uninvolved editor to examine this situation. Whats your problem? --Human3015TALK  05:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Yeah sure lets go for DRN and get this over with. I've filed the request FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

text: @User:Human3015 You're still misunderstanding the terms. I've tried to explain this to you using the Korean War as an analogy. Technically, that is still an on-going conflict, even though the major military engagement ended over half a century ago. The outcome of the Korean War is listed as an "armistice" on its wiki article, which means a temporary cessation of fighting i.e. cease-fire. This case is similar to Siachin, because no final peace agreement has been signed and a cease-fire/armistice is in effect. The same applies to the 1947/65/99 wars, as they were all centered on the Kashmir dispute, which is still on-going as neither side has conceded their conflicting claim. All conflicts where there is a cease-fire in effect can restart at any time, and in many cases there is a constant level of active hostilities, mobilization and even attrition. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb!  05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  For those who claim Indian Victory, Here is the Quote from a reliable Indian Source. "Indeed many Indians viewed the Siachin operations as a "diplomatic and military disaster", a view not confined to civilians alone."  HIAS (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Since my previous proposal, a suggestion has made that the Result parameter should be changed to Status. I don't see a problem with it, because the conflict would be over only after India and Pakistan get together and negotiate a settlement. So my revised proposal is:
* Status: Ceasefire since 2003
* Territorial changes: Siachen Glacier comes under Indian control; Continues to be disputed by Pakistan.
Please comment on this. (The DRN is not active until it has been accepted.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kautilya3 This was exactly what I added to the article with my edit but it was reverted by Human3015 due to reasons unknown. I have been proposing this exact text since this mess started.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  don't you think that all this fuss is started by you by your unnecessary revert you done as part of your hounding habit? And now you are agreeing on same kind of version which I actually restored which you reverted. Anyway, I don't want to discuss this issue further.--Human3015TALK  15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

text:  The main difference is that I "talked". Shows you the importance of talking! Since all of us are agreed, I will implement the change, unless somebody has done it already. Thank you everybody! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Three completely fictional observations by Ghazi912 above. DLinth (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised proposal 

message: There was a request to fully protect this article for a further two weeks. Rather than do that, I've applied a WP:1RR editing restriction until November 1, 2015. --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretionary sanctions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Siachen conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103101651/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-5480111.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-5480111.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict
I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:
* An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
*A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. 
* A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. 
* An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
*Pinging  to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things.
--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing restrictions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Edit request 1 of 2: This is my first edit request, please do not forget to incorporate my next edit request immediately below section.
Please add following to the lede. 
 The Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) divides current positions of Indian and Pakistani military posts and troops across the entire  long front line in Siachen Glacier, with India in the east and Pakistan on the west of AGPL.The fight for SiachenThey shall not pass The actual India-Pakistan boundary is divided into 4 types of borders: disputed Sir Creek riverine border, mutually agreed India–Pakistan International Border (IB) from north of Sir Creek to north of Dhalan near Jammu, LoC across disputed Kashmir and Ladakh regions from north of Dhalan to Point NJ9842, and Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) across Siachen from Point NJ9842 to Indira Col West. 
Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. -ink&fables «talk» 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 

message: This is my second edit request, please do not forget to incorporate my previous edit request immediately above this section.
Edit request 2 of 2: Following 2 sentences in the lede say the same thing:
 The contended area is nearly  of territory.  
and
 According to TIME magazine, India gained control of more than 2500 km2 of territory because of its military operations in Siachen.
replace/merge these into 
 India gained control of  of disputed territory in 1984 because of its military operations in Siachen.
Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. -ink&fables «talk» 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2) 

message: The conflict was started in 1984 by India's successful capture of the Siachen Glacier as part of Operation Meghdoot, and subsequently "countinued" (to be changed to continued) with Operation Rajiv. Sharonmansoor (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021 

message: 39.44.194.12 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Run n Fly (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Understood, in popular culture section I'll add Waleed (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021 

message: There is no page 38 of the Karachi Agreement.Article mentions it but does not give any source.So reference to page 38 should be deleted. 106.213.36.169 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference to page 38? Do you mean the 38th reference ( [38] )? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs)  11:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're speaking about  That quote is found on page 53 of the cited source, with no mention of page 38 of the Karachi agreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I've removed this. It doesn't appear the Karachi agreement even has 38 pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2021 

message: locked article2603:8000:D300:D0F:4806:206C:14F:70EF (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: in revision 1118220010. TGHL ↗ 🍁 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  coditions = conditions 

message: Please add the name of Lt. Gen. Ramesh Kulkarni who bravely led the war on site in Siachen from 1987 to 1995.  It's well documented in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Siachen-1987-Battle-Frozen-Frontier-ebook/dp/B0BFJNL4HQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=SUBF63HLN5Y&keywords=Siachen+1987&qid=1665016449&qu=eyJxc2MiOiItMC4wMSIsInFzYSI6IjAuMDAiLCJxc3AiOiIwLjAwIn0%3D&s=books&sprefix=siachen+1987%2Cstripbooks%2C117&sr=1-1
Lt Gen Kulkarni lives in Pune, India.
Thank you,
Vasudev Bhandarkar
CEO, Scoredata Corporation
[Related to Lt Gen Kulkarni's family] Vasudevb (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. TGHL ↗ 🍁 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Understood, would add in commanders section Waleed (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2022 

message: Change the name of the unit involved in the 2016 avalanche from 6 Madras to 19 Madras. I can cite several sources for this claim, apart from the fact that a family member of mine serves in 19 Madras and was there during the avalanche. MyHugeDeck (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2024 

message: Dear Author,
The Orpolitics section mentions about the Expedition to the longest glacier in the following paragraph:
In 1978 a German Siachen-Kondus Expedition under the leadership of Jaroslav Poncar (further members Volker Stallbohm and Wolfgang Kohl, liaison officer major Asad Raza) entered Siachen via Bilafond La and established the base camp on the confluence of Siachen and Teram Shehr. The documentary "Expedition to the longest glacier" was shown on the 3rd channel of WDR (German TV) in 1979.[citation needed]
Sharing an article for the citation - https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-siachen-story-the-inadvertent-role-of-two-german-explorers-in-starting-the-race-to-the-world-s-highest-battlefield 
The article talks about the German Expedition. 
Please consider adding the same to the article 223.190.81.158 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, I've added the reference in the section Waleed (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting a citation for the German Expedition under Oropolitics section