Talk:Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

October 2024

[edit]

@Noorullah21

Hi, you say that the BLA attacks and TTP attacks are separate from the border clashes, in that case, shouldn’t their casualties and side not be in the article at all? It seems contradictory. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VirtualVagabond My point exactly, but I moved them to a third section for now. If you feel they should be entirely excluded from the article, I'm not against it, and rather support it. Noorullah (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Skirmishes"

[edit]

Skirmish: "an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets."

It's premeditated fighting, airstrikes and raids. The article should be renamed as "conflict", and "skirmishes" (skirmish) rewritten as clashes. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you don't have a source (reference) saying precisely and explicitly (for example) "61 killed or wounded" either don't try to calculate any total yourself (which is original research) and write "Unknown", or use any source saying any TOTAL figures by any date and then also note that given date and who claimed this or that figure (like "(Pakistan claim as of [date])"). Even something like "dozens" would also do, if this is what a source actually says (again, no original researching at all).

Read Wikipedia:No original research, also regarding synthesis (not allowed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the title: there are definitely a bunch of WP articles that say "border skirmish" and that say "border clashes", and I find it hard to distinguish between them. My hunch is that the title should be whatever sources tend to call it, and looking around for a bit it in news about the recent fighting it seems "clash" is used by Al Jazeera and VoA (which uses "clashes" when referring to Pakistan's fighting in 2024, and also talks about targeting for the recent events). Sources that don't use either word but say the violence is coordinated/targeted include Reuters (says the Taliban says they targeted points in response to "coordinated attacks"), whose story was reprinted by CNN and France24; and AP. I think it makes sense to change the title, but I'd suggest "clashes" instead of "conflict" since the broader conflict is from before 2024.
I think specific incidents in the article should be looked at case-by-case, going by what sources say. I do see at least one place where "skirmish" didn't make sense from the source.
About the numbers: WP:CALC says it's allowed to do basic math without explicit sources, but yeah I don't see sources for the numbers in the breakdown in the infobox. The infobox numbers are also way different from numbers given in at least this VoA article (which says Pakistan says 900 "terrorists" and 400 Pakistani security forces killed). It's also not obvious what the "first phase" and "second phase" are. Infobox casualties could use some attention Placeholderer (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's just Wikipedia's misuse of the word skirmish that means something else entirely. Also per dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skirmish). Good find on the VOA article figures (from a few days ago, before the most recent major escalation). Also from the AP one, Pakistan claiming "more than 950 Pakistanis, including security personnel and civilians, have been killed in 2024 alone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is regarding the Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which these skirmishes are a part of, but the two are not mutual Waleed (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural close – Moved to Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes (2024–present). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes → Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict – As mentioned it's not "skirmishes" (and soon it's going to be 2025).94.246.147.217 (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above I suggest "2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes", or "2024–present" if it keeps going, or "2024–2025" if it continues into 2025 then stops Placeholderer (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Merger discussion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Reywas92Talk 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles with limited scope and heavy bias (such as calling it a war), those being 2024 Taliban-Pakistan War and 2024 Pakistan–Afghanistan tension should be speedily merged into this article Waleed (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e, @NAUser0001 and @Eltabar243, being the page creators, please contribute to this discussion Waleed (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are literally attacking each other Yesyesmrcool (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what skirmishes mean, there's literally an article called as Pakistan Taliban war, when it's not even close to a war Waleed (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2024 Taliban-Pakistan War is unambiguously redundant with this article. 2024 Pakistan–Afghanistan tension almost entirely overlaps with this, and adding a "Reactions" section or similar to this article would make it redundant (that article is essentially background, description of the events, and reactions; only the reactions are distinct).
2024 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan could be distinct enough to be its own article (if more information were added to it), but that would raise the question of making separate articles for the incursions into Pakistan or for other attacks. It might make sense to consolidate that one into this as well, especially if a "Reactions" section were added here, but I feel less strongly about it Placeholderer (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: for the same opposition reasons of the others VirtualVagabond (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If any page should be merged it should be this one into the article about the war, in the "events leading up to" section. Pescavelho (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is understanding WP: Redundant, there's no war ongoing, no international source calls it a war and per WP:COMMONNAME we shouldn't either and why this article be merged when it's backed by 70 sources compared to just four for 2024 Taliban-Pakistan War, this article goes into much much more detail than the others, similarly the 2024 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan is itself ambiguous especially since there's been an earlier round of airstrikes by Pakistan inside Afghanistan in March of 2024 and more so, this article goes much deeper into the details of the airstrikes than the strike's own article, similarly 2024 Pakistan-Afghanistan tension has nothing unique from this article apart from the reactions and that too can be included easily into this article without much of a problem, seriously before making a case for yourself read Wikipedia policies, these articles I talked about are nothing but WP: Redundant fork Waleed (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pescavelho, @Ratnahastin, @VirtualVagabond and @Yesyesmrcool, please read my above reply Waleed (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and in particular think merging the 2024 Taliban-Pakistan War article into this is just a more polite alternative than A10 speedy deletion for unhelpfully duplicating an existing article Placeholderer (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: True, theres no such war just border skirmishes and all articles are a POVFORK needs speedy merge.
Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  checkY Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Phases"

[edit]

The sources used for the end of the "first phase" in the info box only reported on some more continued fighting. It could well be that just the article simply wasn't being updated after that, until the late December when the "second phase" was invented on Wikipedia. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree there is no mention in sources of any first second phase, the events should be mentioned in the main body according to months or dates since its a continued conflict. Rahim231 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to have two ranges of dates in the infobox, because otherwise it would be implied that fighting has been continuous since March. Maybe phrasing other than "first/second phase" can be used, but I think it's fine to arbitrarily break up a subject (example: Ukraine War timeline, though that's articles that were broken up because there was too much info) if it's for a good reason Placeholderer (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the skirmishes aren't continuous with Afghan Taliban unlike TTP, its the nature of skirmishes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It can be arranged as a timeline although border skirmishes occurred twice at March and December only and were heightened unlike regular skrimishes or a continued invasion by a country like Russo-Ukraine war. Rahim231 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

The casualties in the article seem to be of the entre Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2024, rather than simply the skirmishes and related events Waleed (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

The TTP uses a white flag similar to this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Variant_flag_of_the_Islamic_State.svg Source: https://amu.tv/104540/ RossoSPC (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source #2: https://www.afghanislamicpress.com/en/news/101352 RossoSPC (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and Misinformation

[edit]

@Virat69 Can you please fix your terrible Grammar (such as letters being lowercase) and misinformation? I have checked one of your sources and it doesnt mention that the BLA "in retaliation" attacked a Pakistan military site, it only mentioned the attack and no suck "retaliation."

Also, why did you bold random text? JaxsonR (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October article versus this article body versus this article lead

[edit]

Currently it makes sense to have udpates on the 9-12 October conflict in 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict. The body of this article should have a brief summary, and the WP:LEAD of this article should have an even briefer WP:SUMMARY. There's no point adding the same content all over the place redundantly: people won't know where to update. Boud (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that alternatives are possible, e.g. WP:MERGE 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict into this article, or rename 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict. The key point is that people want to know where to edit without their edits being likely to be removed as redundant. Boud (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud Thanks. Agree. I didn't write the lead but just made some edits in cleanup or addition with sources. 154.205.144.180 (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK :). I've replaced the October section here using {{excerpt}}. Sorry if this has removed some of your editing - you can recover it from my edit and see what makes sense to add to 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict. Boud (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no problem. I'll check and re-add if I'll found something missing. Thanks for the help and guidance. Happy editing.154.205.144.180 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud You can create a redirect for Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan as Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan (disambiguation). 154.205.144.180 (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse the changes made by this guy

[edit]

Hello, this guy seems to be using pro-Indian sources to add content in the header details section... Can someone check this users' history and undo the changes made on 11 October? [2] 39.49.122.77 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2025

[edit]

Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present) → Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–2025) – The recent ceasefire it the 2025 Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict has ended these clashes. They began in 2024 during rising terrorist attacks in Pakistan and large-scale deportation of Afghan refugees, which led to rising tensions and souring relation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. These clashes didn't really "officially end" but were toned down and less violent, up and till the recent conflict. The recent ceasefire between Pakistan and Afghanistan brokered by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in order to end the recent clashes/conflict has been the closest/only to ending the Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present). KashanAbbas (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as premature. The article describes active clashes as recently as two weeks ago, and the described ceasefire is only 10 days old. In fact the article says the clashes this month have been the largest in the series and the largest since the Taliban came to power in 2021. It seems premature to move the article with the assumption that the ceasefire will continue to hold for a long time after the series of clashes spanning more than a year and a half. If further clashes occur soon, they should be added into this article, not described as something fundamentally separate, and we shouldn't be moving articles to different titles frequently based on day-to-day developments. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further clashes beyond February 2025 should've always been on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. If further clashes continue, then we can say the clashes are still ongoing. The ceasefire came into effect on 19 October, 2025. Today is 31 October, 2025. Yes at the start of the month clashes were at their most violent since since December 2024, but since the ceasefire came into affect, the border has been at its most quite and clam state in the past 10/25 months since the Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present) escalated/began. If the conflict continues till January of 2026, only then can this proposal be thrown out. KashanAbbas (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You refer to the clashes earlier this month being the most violent since December 2024, but the article says they were larger than in December 2024 – in fact the largest since the Taliban came to power in 2021. Is that incorrect? RMs are typically open for a week. If you agree that this RM is unlikely to be successful within a week or two, I suggest to withdraw it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    English is not my first language. I was talking about escalation in clashes, which is why I said "in the past 10/25 months since the Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present) escalated/began". I should have wrote respectively. The clashes in December were also particularly bloody and violent, perhaps not as much as October, but still. KashanAbbas (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]