![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm re-adding the timeline. I think its really important to list the events in order that they happened and then take up analysis in a different section. Its also important to separate actual India-Pakistan military clashes, as reported in reliable sources, with other claims made by both countries and their media. VR talk 01:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Aumnamahashiva, I have carefully separated the official statements and the media reports into separate sections. The former in the "Surgical strikes claim" section and the latter into a section that eventually got put into "Timeline". Please don't mix them up.
We can't really be sure of anything in the media reports. The media distort stuff, and their sources distort stuff etc. Moreover, it is the Indian government's job to release reliable information. If they don't, it is their problem, not ours. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Are Pakistan and Jaish on the same side of the conflict? Pakistan banned Jaish a while back. Jaish should be listed as a separate group that may or may not be aligned with Pakistan. In fact, what exactly has India claimed? That Pakistanis soldiers were defending Jaish? VR talk 01:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Does everything have to be confirmed? The Indian media is happy to print that the Antilia building cost U$1 billion but that is unconfirmed. The only confirmed figure is $50-70 million. Yet the Wikipedia page says $1 billion? Tri400 ( talk) 13:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d How do you claim a full Wikipedia article to be POV?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 07:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think what he means is that putting that article in the See Also tries to bolster one argument over another. For example, what if we put Baghat Singh in the See Also of Burhan Wani (both took up armed struggle to achieve independence)? Or if we put Revolutionary movement for Indian independence in the See also of Jaish-e-Mohammed (again both illegal military organizations trying to gain independence)? It would obviously bolster one view over another. And that is POV. VR talk 03:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
""Surgical strike" claim" section and "Analysis" section pretty much serve one purpose - to debate whether the surgical strike took place. So they should be merged. What we can do is give official arguments precedence and put the media reports only at the end of the section. VR talk 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article says "On 5 October, The Indian Express stated it had managed to conduct covert interviews with eyewitnesses ...According to those eyewitness accounts, along with certain classified documents the Express had obtained, the surgical strikes had been successful." The source doesn't use the word "successful". It says "the raids...have caused little damage to jihadist logistics and infrastructure." VR talk 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This removes from the lead that India has confirmed one of its soldiers were captured. Why? VR talk 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya just reverted my edit. In my edit, I tried to make things NPOV, by ascribing to Nawaz Sharif the accusations that he made towards India rather than treat them as fact. I also shortened it a bit. Finally, I removed the part about 2 soldiers, cause that's been mentioned in several other places in the article. Kautilya, can you explain why you reverted? VR talk 15:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is confusing. It first says that "Lashkar-e-Taiba(LeT) suffered the maximum damage in the cross-LoC surgical strikes on terror launch pads carried out by Indian army with assessment reports of radio intercepts indicating that around 20 of its militants were killed." Then it says "at least 10 LeT terrorists had been been killed during the multiple and near synchronised surgical strikes on four launch pads." And then "at Balnoi area opposite of Poonch in which nine people belonging to LeT were killed."
Are the 9 who were killed at Balnoi not included in the "at least 10" who were killed during "surgical strikes"? If so, how were they killed? I'm guessing they are included in the surgical strikes. So we should make that clear in the article. VR talk 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved; keep at present name 2016 IndiaâPakistan military confrontation; and delete redirect 2016 Indian surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. â Fayenatic L ondon 11:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir â 2016 Indian surgical strike in PoK â The official declaration itself claims the same. Most of the google search results , for example, [1] [2] [3] [4]. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk ⹠mail) 04:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
âThe Indian military was wiser and didnât go for a deeper strike. They just fulfilled the wishes of the political leadership without causing any major disaster,â said Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. âOnly two people died, and in the Indo-Pak context, two people dying on the border is almost routine.â [2]
Mar4d ( talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)âWhen reminded that the Indian government has said the casualties were in âdouble digits,â Durrani said: âWe say two were killed and they will say 100. The truth is lost between India and Pakistan when the first bullet is fired.â.â [2]
References
Fayenatic london, I am not sure why the redirect 2016 Indian surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir has been deleted. It wasn't discussed in the RfM and WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply to redirects. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it is probably time to close the article and show the confrontation as having ended. There has been no (atleast notable) incident or any reports of casualties from both sides for more than a week. Even Pakistan government seems to have temporarily disregarded hostile stance towards Indian government, offering dialogue at Heart of Asia conference. I say we let it remain open till 3 December. That will be 10 days since the latest military incident and if no military incident is recorded by then, we should show the confrontation as having ended. 117.241.116.22 ( talk) 22:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Things are not so clear-cut. Unless you can find reliable sources that state that the confrontation has "ended", your repeated insistence that it has ended amounts to WP:OR. You and the other IP should stop edit-warring over this. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Many of the casualties on the infobox are from recent cross-border exchanges, whereas it is my understanding this article is on the incident on 29 September 2016. We may need a separate article for the follow-up conflict (like IndiaâPakistan border skirmishes (2014â2015)), or at the very least, the infobox should distinguish the casualties on the 29th September and those that occurred in the following months (unrelated to the former). Mar4d ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There has been no incident described in the timeline since 2 December and I cannot seem to find any. Is it still ongoing? If there really has been any incident since 2 December then please add it. If there hasn't been, then this article should be closed because a confrontation that hasn't had a incident in a month cannot be ongoing. 117.199.92.36 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm making edits, so that that the "Timeline" section can be kept for what India and Pakistan both claim happened. The "surgical strikes" section, can be reserved for various arguments India and Pakistan give to support their side of the story. VR talk 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
RegentsPark can you decide whether you want to allow this kind of behaviour under your edit restrictions?
In a highly dynamic page like this, moving/deleting huge amounts of content is becoming highly disruptive. Surely, this kind of edit-warring is not allowed by the editing restrictions you have imposed? This does not even follow the normal WP:BRD let alone any fancy edit restrictions! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's all there. I guess I have to spell it out for you:
Prev Version | Current Version |
---|---|
On 29 September, eleven days after the Uri attack, the Indian army said it had conducted "surgical strikes" against suspected militants in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. | India claimed to have made "surgical strikes" against militant bases in Pakistani-held territory on September 29... |
Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said that it had received "very credible and specific information" about "terrorist teams" who were preparing to "carry out infiltration and conduct terrorist strikes inside Jammu and Kashmir and in various metros in other states". | Indian army said ... that it had received intelligence that the militants were planning "terrorist strikes" against India. |
The Indian action was meant to pre-empt their infiltration | Indian army said the strike was a pre-emptive attack on militants bases |
India presented its operation as preemptive self-defence against terrorism, striking against terrorist infrastructure along with "those who are trying to support them", which according to one Indian columnist's opinion included Pakistani soldiers or the elements of Pakistani state | India said that, in destroying "terrorist infrastructure" it also attacked "those who are trying to support them", indicating it attacked Pakistani soldiers too. |
Ranbir Singh said that his Pakistani counterpart had been informed.[3] The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[25] | The Indian army said that its Pakistani counterpart had been informed of the surgical strike.[3] The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[3] |
Pakistan denied that such surgical strikes occurred. | Pakistan denied that any surgical strikes occurred. |
The Inter-Services Public Relations said that there had only been "cross border firing".[24] | The Pakistan Army said that there had only been "cross border firing".[26] |
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif condemned the "unprovoked and naked aggression of Indian forces", which he said resulted in the death of two Pakistani soldiers.[26] | Sharif... said the Indian attack was "unprovoked" and constituted aggression. |
On 30 September, Indian minister for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore said "there were no aerial strikes" and that the operation was conducted "on the ground".[29][30] | On September 30, an Indian minister denied that there were any helicopters used, stating the operation was conducted "on the ground" |
So what exactly is the sourced content that I removed? VR talk 05:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Vice regent: The DRN case was closed partly because you said there wasn't enough discussion on the talk page. So, please take this discussion ahead. I think it would be best to focus on the issues as
RegentsPark framed them: If I understand this correctly, the dispute centers around where the material should go and what the wording should look like
. My views on these issues are as follows:
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.When unnamed officials speak to the press off the record, you certainly can't claim that they are positions of "governments". They could be instances of misinformation, planted rumours, or just made up by the officials based on guess work. For that reason, all the official statements and unofficial reports have to be carefully separated. Of the latter, only those reports should be included that form a consensus among a wide variety of reliable sources.
I am sorry Vice regent. I have no idea what we are talking about any more. Your pace of discussion is too slow and taxing. If you want to debate this further, I suggest you take it to WP:DRN and initiate a focused discussion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised you forgot. The gist was that the Indian and Pakistani claims of what happened, both during the alleged "surgical strikes" and before and after, should come first and be stated neutrally. Debate on whether the surgical strikes and the resulting analysis should come after.
Furthermore, duplicate material should be removed, and content should be stated as succinctly as possible. VR talk 03:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Here they are, straight from the horse's mouth:
On Saturday, Pakistani troops opened fire on an Indian Army patrol, killing a Major and three soldiers, along the LoC in the Keri sector of Jammu and Kashmir's Rajouri district. A defence spokesman said Pakistani troops targeted the Army patrol at Brat Galla in the Keri sector.
Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a total of 881 ceasefire violations this year, highest in the past seven years, along the LoC and the International Border (IB), resulting in the death of 34 persons. According to officials, Pakistan has violated ceasefire along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir 771 times till December 10, and 110 times along the IB till November-end this year.
Thirty persons -- 14 Army personnel, 12 civilians and four BSF personnel -- were killed in such incidents.
In 2016, there were 449 incidents of ceasefire violations wherein 13 civilians and 13 government forces personnel were killed and 83 civilians and 99 security personnel were injured.
Clearly, the total death count is 35 (14 Army personnel killed till December 10 + 4 army personnel killed on Sunday + 4 BSF personnel + 13 government forces personnel killed last year). â MBL Talk 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi MBlaze Lightning, I see that you have updated the Pakistani casualties (India claims section) in the infobox. You have derived the numbers from 2017 +2018 claims. But you have forgotten to add the numbers for Pakistani casualties (Indian claims) from 2016 since this page covers the events post September 2016. In my opinion, those should be included as well. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, you say that you "have already counted 20 killed in action for this year" but prior to my edit there was only one source in the infobox which mentioned the Indian claim of killing Pakistani soldiers this year. [17] I replaced it with the Economic Times source, which contained information about the total casualties inflicted upon the Pakistan Army by the Indian Army this year till February, 15. â MBL Talk 08:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this change, please see WP:SYNTH. We don't combine two conflicting sources to calculate casualties. The second one makes no mention of military casualties, whereas the first gave a total figure. Either way, until we have a single source which explicitly states a figure of 35 (from official channels, or stated in fact), there is no way to verify the number, so we cannot simply conjure numbers out of thin air. There has to be a single source providing that figure, period. Two reports don't qualify, as in that case there are dozens of news reports from both sides with varying numbers which don't add up. It also doesn't match the sources and citations the article has been updated with right up until now, so this needs to be restored to the authentic count. Mar4d ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
We need to use both the figures from government (46 civilians killed in last year) and the military ones, 52 killed per the sources provided here. Range of numbers like Adam puts, which would be 35-45 military casualties in last year. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Do me a favour and read what accusations actually mean. As for your actual question, other editors have already pointed out (you'd know if you had read) that these figures should come from single source specifically stating the causalities, not from some mental math practice that suits your POV. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is against WP's policy and I urge to refrain from it, as in this case it is leading towards WP:POV pushing.â TripWire ________ÊlÉÊ 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The status has been edited to show that the event is still ongoing. If it is true, the article's title should be changed to include the year 2017. Another course of action would be to end the article with 2016, with primary focus on the "surgical strikes", and creating a new article for military skirmishes in 2017. This can't be both "ongoing" and 3 months into 2017. RoCo (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work EkoGraf. appreciate it. unfortunately licensing agreement has been violated, please correct it and mention the source article wiki link in your edit summary. More here Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. -- DBig Xray 20:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
yes  Done--
DBig
Xray
11:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Where is the WP:CONSENSUS that is being claimed to justify this WP:FORK spin-off article [32]? This article is on the same topic, and everyone knows it. Mar4d ( talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should replace the Pakistani Navy as one of the Belligerents in the infobox with Pakistani Rangers. I am not entirely sure why it was included since this seems to be a purely border clash. On this line, even the Pakistani Navy COMPAK and the CNS should be removed. The Director General, Punjab of Pakistan Rangers should be instead added to the list of commanders. Any thoughts, suggestions or views on this proposal? Adamgerber80 ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Hwork21:, Can you please explain your rationale here for tagging this article with the rapidly changing tag? Yes the event is ongoing but the updates are by no means rapid and occur at low frequency with quite some intervals of time between them. As per guidelines on Wikipedia, we do not tag such articles with this tag. You can have a look at numerous other ongoing conflict articles for this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
In February 2018, Pakistan Minister for Defence Khurram Dastgir Khan told National Assembly that 66 Pakistani civilians have been killed in 5 years. Can his claim used as official Pakistani civilian casualities? I mean he made that claim in the national assembly and he is the minister for defense. Please do take a look into this matter. [33] 37.41.6.108 ( talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
There have been news reports that both India and Pakistan and agreed to return to the ceasefire agreement of 2003 and stop the current skirmishes. I reverted the recent changes of @ Amirk94391: and the page move. IMO, this a bit premature and we should wait and see how this unfolds before we declare this skirmish over. What it would take in my view for this skirmish to be declared over is a sustained time period (currently unspecified but must be more than a few months) of relative peace. Do other editors involved in this page have other thoughts on this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: Hey, as you said we should more focus on neutrality, so, wouldn't be less burden claims are neutral. We only need the exact confirmed number which are claimed by their own sources for either country. The claims which are from India for Pakistan or Pakistan for India, are never been accepted, why we need it when it never accepted by either country, the claims which are accepted by both countries are the claims which they themselves accepted. So the best neutrality will be non-burden/over claims. Best Regards. Qasee1230 «Talk» 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Qasee1230 ( talk) 23:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm re-adding the timeline. I think its really important to list the events in order that they happened and then take up analysis in a different section. Its also important to separate actual India-Pakistan military clashes, as reported in reliable sources, with other claims made by both countries and their media. VR talk 01:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Aumnamahashiva, I have carefully separated the official statements and the media reports into separate sections. The former in the "Surgical strikes claim" section and the latter into a section that eventually got put into "Timeline". Please don't mix them up.
We can't really be sure of anything in the media reports. The media distort stuff, and their sources distort stuff etc. Moreover, it is the Indian government's job to release reliable information. If they don't, it is their problem, not ours. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Are Pakistan and Jaish on the same side of the conflict? Pakistan banned Jaish a while back. Jaish should be listed as a separate group that may or may not be aligned with Pakistan. In fact, what exactly has India claimed? That Pakistanis soldiers were defending Jaish? VR talk 01:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Does everything have to be confirmed? The Indian media is happy to print that the Antilia building cost U$1 billion but that is unconfirmed. The only confirmed figure is $50-70 million. Yet the Wikipedia page says $1 billion? Tri400 ( talk) 13:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d How do you claim a full Wikipedia article to be POV?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 07:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think what he means is that putting that article in the See Also tries to bolster one argument over another. For example, what if we put Baghat Singh in the See Also of Burhan Wani (both took up armed struggle to achieve independence)? Or if we put Revolutionary movement for Indian independence in the See also of Jaish-e-Mohammed (again both illegal military organizations trying to gain independence)? It would obviously bolster one view over another. And that is POV. VR talk 03:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
""Surgical strike" claim" section and "Analysis" section pretty much serve one purpose - to debate whether the surgical strike took place. So they should be merged. What we can do is give official arguments precedence and put the media reports only at the end of the section. VR talk 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article says "On 5 October, The Indian Express stated it had managed to conduct covert interviews with eyewitnesses ...According to those eyewitness accounts, along with certain classified documents the Express had obtained, the surgical strikes had been successful." The source doesn't use the word "successful". It says "the raids...have caused little damage to jihadist logistics and infrastructure." VR talk 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This removes from the lead that India has confirmed one of its soldiers were captured. Why? VR talk 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya just reverted my edit. In my edit, I tried to make things NPOV, by ascribing to Nawaz Sharif the accusations that he made towards India rather than treat them as fact. I also shortened it a bit. Finally, I removed the part about 2 soldiers, cause that's been mentioned in several other places in the article. Kautilya, can you explain why you reverted? VR talk 15:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is confusing. It first says that "Lashkar-e-Taiba(LeT) suffered the maximum damage in the cross-LoC surgical strikes on terror launch pads carried out by Indian army with assessment reports of radio intercepts indicating that around 20 of its militants were killed." Then it says "at least 10 LeT terrorists had been been killed during the multiple and near synchronised surgical strikes on four launch pads." And then "at Balnoi area opposite of Poonch in which nine people belonging to LeT were killed."
Are the 9 who were killed at Balnoi not included in the "at least 10" who were killed during "surgical strikes"? If so, how were they killed? I'm guessing they are included in the surgical strikes. So we should make that clear in the article. VR talk 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved; keep at present name 2016 IndiaâPakistan military confrontation; and delete redirect 2016 Indian surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. â Fayenatic L ondon 11:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir â 2016 Indian surgical strike in PoK â The official declaration itself claims the same. Most of the google search results , for example, [1] [2] [3] [4]. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk ⹠mail) 04:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
âThe Indian military was wiser and didnât go for a deeper strike. They just fulfilled the wishes of the political leadership without causing any major disaster,â said Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. âOnly two people died, and in the Indo-Pak context, two people dying on the border is almost routine.â [2]
Mar4d ( talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)âWhen reminded that the Indian government has said the casualties were in âdouble digits,â Durrani said: âWe say two were killed and they will say 100. The truth is lost between India and Pakistan when the first bullet is fired.â.â [2]
References
Fayenatic london, I am not sure why the redirect 2016 Indian surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir has been deleted. It wasn't discussed in the RfM and WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply to redirects. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it is probably time to close the article and show the confrontation as having ended. There has been no (atleast notable) incident or any reports of casualties from both sides for more than a week. Even Pakistan government seems to have temporarily disregarded hostile stance towards Indian government, offering dialogue at Heart of Asia conference. I say we let it remain open till 3 December. That will be 10 days since the latest military incident and if no military incident is recorded by then, we should show the confrontation as having ended. 117.241.116.22 ( talk) 22:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Things are not so clear-cut. Unless you can find reliable sources that state that the confrontation has "ended", your repeated insistence that it has ended amounts to WP:OR. You and the other IP should stop edit-warring over this. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Many of the casualties on the infobox are from recent cross-border exchanges, whereas it is my understanding this article is on the incident on 29 September 2016. We may need a separate article for the follow-up conflict (like IndiaâPakistan border skirmishes (2014â2015)), or at the very least, the infobox should distinguish the casualties on the 29th September and those that occurred in the following months (unrelated to the former). Mar4d ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There has been no incident described in the timeline since 2 December and I cannot seem to find any. Is it still ongoing? If there really has been any incident since 2 December then please add it. If there hasn't been, then this article should be closed because a confrontation that hasn't had a incident in a month cannot be ongoing. 117.199.92.36 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm making edits, so that that the "Timeline" section can be kept for what India and Pakistan both claim happened. The "surgical strikes" section, can be reserved for various arguments India and Pakistan give to support their side of the story. VR talk 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
RegentsPark can you decide whether you want to allow this kind of behaviour under your edit restrictions?
In a highly dynamic page like this, moving/deleting huge amounts of content is becoming highly disruptive. Surely, this kind of edit-warring is not allowed by the editing restrictions you have imposed? This does not even follow the normal WP:BRD let alone any fancy edit restrictions! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's all there. I guess I have to spell it out for you:
Prev Version | Current Version |
---|---|
On 29 September, eleven days after the Uri attack, the Indian army said it had conducted "surgical strikes" against suspected militants in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. | India claimed to have made "surgical strikes" against militant bases in Pakistani-held territory on September 29... |
Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said that it had received "very credible and specific information" about "terrorist teams" who were preparing to "carry out infiltration and conduct terrorist strikes inside Jammu and Kashmir and in various metros in other states". | Indian army said ... that it had received intelligence that the militants were planning "terrorist strikes" against India. |
The Indian action was meant to pre-empt their infiltration | Indian army said the strike was a pre-emptive attack on militants bases |
India presented its operation as preemptive self-defence against terrorism, striking against terrorist infrastructure along with "those who are trying to support them", which according to one Indian columnist's opinion included Pakistani soldiers or the elements of Pakistani state | India said that, in destroying "terrorist infrastructure" it also attacked "those who are trying to support them", indicating it attacked Pakistani soldiers too. |
Ranbir Singh said that his Pakistani counterpart had been informed.[3] The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[25] | The Indian army said that its Pakistani counterpart had been informed of the surgical strike.[3] The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[3] |
Pakistan denied that such surgical strikes occurred. | Pakistan denied that any surgical strikes occurred. |
The Inter-Services Public Relations said that there had only been "cross border firing".[24] | The Pakistan Army said that there had only been "cross border firing".[26] |
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif condemned the "unprovoked and naked aggression of Indian forces", which he said resulted in the death of two Pakistani soldiers.[26] | Sharif... said the Indian attack was "unprovoked" and constituted aggression. |
On 30 September, Indian minister for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore said "there were no aerial strikes" and that the operation was conducted "on the ground".[29][30] | On September 30, an Indian minister denied that there were any helicopters used, stating the operation was conducted "on the ground" |
So what exactly is the sourced content that I removed? VR talk 05:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Vice regent: The DRN case was closed partly because you said there wasn't enough discussion on the talk page. So, please take this discussion ahead. I think it would be best to focus on the issues as
RegentsPark framed them: If I understand this correctly, the dispute centers around where the material should go and what the wording should look like
. My views on these issues are as follows:
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.When unnamed officials speak to the press off the record, you certainly can't claim that they are positions of "governments". They could be instances of misinformation, planted rumours, or just made up by the officials based on guess work. For that reason, all the official statements and unofficial reports have to be carefully separated. Of the latter, only those reports should be included that form a consensus among a wide variety of reliable sources.
I am sorry Vice regent. I have no idea what we are talking about any more. Your pace of discussion is too slow and taxing. If you want to debate this further, I suggest you take it to WP:DRN and initiate a focused discussion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised you forgot. The gist was that the Indian and Pakistani claims of what happened, both during the alleged "surgical strikes" and before and after, should come first and be stated neutrally. Debate on whether the surgical strikes and the resulting analysis should come after.
Furthermore, duplicate material should be removed, and content should be stated as succinctly as possible. VR talk 03:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Here they are, straight from the horse's mouth:
On Saturday, Pakistani troops opened fire on an Indian Army patrol, killing a Major and three soldiers, along the LoC in the Keri sector of Jammu and Kashmir's Rajouri district. A defence spokesman said Pakistani troops targeted the Army patrol at Brat Galla in the Keri sector.
Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a total of 881 ceasefire violations this year, highest in the past seven years, along the LoC and the International Border (IB), resulting in the death of 34 persons. According to officials, Pakistan has violated ceasefire along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir 771 times till December 10, and 110 times along the IB till November-end this year.
Thirty persons -- 14 Army personnel, 12 civilians and four BSF personnel -- were killed in such incidents.
In 2016, there were 449 incidents of ceasefire violations wherein 13 civilians and 13 government forces personnel were killed and 83 civilians and 99 security personnel were injured.
Clearly, the total death count is 35 (14 Army personnel killed till December 10 + 4 army personnel killed on Sunday + 4 BSF personnel + 13 government forces personnel killed last year). â MBL Talk 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi MBlaze Lightning, I see that you have updated the Pakistani casualties (India claims section) in the infobox. You have derived the numbers from 2017 +2018 claims. But you have forgotten to add the numbers for Pakistani casualties (Indian claims) from 2016 since this page covers the events post September 2016. In my opinion, those should be included as well. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, you say that you "have already counted 20 killed in action for this year" but prior to my edit there was only one source in the infobox which mentioned the Indian claim of killing Pakistani soldiers this year. [17] I replaced it with the Economic Times source, which contained information about the total casualties inflicted upon the Pakistan Army by the Indian Army this year till February, 15. â MBL Talk 08:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this change, please see WP:SYNTH. We don't combine two conflicting sources to calculate casualties. The second one makes no mention of military casualties, whereas the first gave a total figure. Either way, until we have a single source which explicitly states a figure of 35 (from official channels, or stated in fact), there is no way to verify the number, so we cannot simply conjure numbers out of thin air. There has to be a single source providing that figure, period. Two reports don't qualify, as in that case there are dozens of news reports from both sides with varying numbers which don't add up. It also doesn't match the sources and citations the article has been updated with right up until now, so this needs to be restored to the authentic count. Mar4d ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
We need to use both the figures from government (46 civilians killed in last year) and the military ones, 52 killed per the sources provided here. Range of numbers like Adam puts, which would be 35-45 military casualties in last year. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Do me a favour and read what accusations actually mean. As for your actual question, other editors have already pointed out (you'd know if you had read) that these figures should come from single source specifically stating the causalities, not from some mental math practice that suits your POV. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is against WP's policy and I urge to refrain from it, as in this case it is leading towards WP:POV pushing.â TripWire ________ÊlÉÊ 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The status has been edited to show that the event is still ongoing. If it is true, the article's title should be changed to include the year 2017. Another course of action would be to end the article with 2016, with primary focus on the "surgical strikes", and creating a new article for military skirmishes in 2017. This can't be both "ongoing" and 3 months into 2017. RoCo (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work EkoGraf. appreciate it. unfortunately licensing agreement has been violated, please correct it and mention the source article wiki link in your edit summary. More here Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. -- DBig Xray 20:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
yes  Done--
DBig
Xray
11:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Where is the WP:CONSENSUS that is being claimed to justify this WP:FORK spin-off article [32]? This article is on the same topic, and everyone knows it. Mar4d ( talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should replace the Pakistani Navy as one of the Belligerents in the infobox with Pakistani Rangers. I am not entirely sure why it was included since this seems to be a purely border clash. On this line, even the Pakistani Navy COMPAK and the CNS should be removed. The Director General, Punjab of Pakistan Rangers should be instead added to the list of commanders. Any thoughts, suggestions or views on this proposal? Adamgerber80 ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Hwork21:, Can you please explain your rationale here for tagging this article with the rapidly changing tag? Yes the event is ongoing but the updates are by no means rapid and occur at low frequency with quite some intervals of time between them. As per guidelines on Wikipedia, we do not tag such articles with this tag. You can have a look at numerous other ongoing conflict articles for this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
In February 2018, Pakistan Minister for Defence Khurram Dastgir Khan told National Assembly that 66 Pakistani civilians have been killed in 5 years. Can his claim used as official Pakistani civilian casualities? I mean he made that claim in the national assembly and he is the minister for defense. Please do take a look into this matter. [33] 37.41.6.108 ( talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
There have been news reports that both India and Pakistan and agreed to return to the ceasefire agreement of 2003 and stop the current skirmishes. I reverted the recent changes of @ Amirk94391: and the page move. IMO, this a bit premature and we should wait and see how this unfolds before we declare this skirmish over. What it would take in my view for this skirmish to be declared over is a sustained time period (currently unspecified but must be more than a few months) of relative peace. Do other editors involved in this page have other thoughts on this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: Hey, as you said we should more focus on neutrality, so, wouldn't be less burden claims are neutral. We only need the exact confirmed number which are claimed by their own sources for either country. The claims which are from India for Pakistan or Pakistan for India, are never been accepted, why we need it when it never accepted by either country, the claims which are accepted by both countries are the claims which they themselves accepted. So the best neutrality will be non-burden/over claims. Best Regards. Qasee1230 «Talk» 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Qasee1230 ( talk) 23:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)