Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

The Indian Air Force has confirmed that 80 per cent of the bombs deployed during the raid hit their intended targets.

Satellite images of IAF strikes in Balakot show significant damage. The damage inflicted to the targets were internal and smart laser-guided penetration bombs were used in the operation.

MoyukhD (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC) MoyukhD

What India says is not RS. Also this is old news.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. We need WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Removal of Hindi citations from the article.

User:Fowler&fowler As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to produce only English refs. This comment is based on your edit where u removed the Hindi ref and added tags there. IMHO the more appropriate thing to do here would be to mark as "better citations needed" with a note on the talk page to elaborate that concern. Although I have added an english citation now, but I want this clarfied for future. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia guidelines for using non-English sources. The response is usually a request for quotation and translation. Given the good likelihood of dozens of English-language sources for the same edit, I was merely saving the editor who first added it, the labor of providing a quotation and translation. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

PS In addition, given the echo chamber of the Indian English-language media, given the charged Wikipedia landscape of India-Pakistan issues, it is hard for me to assume good faith when someone adds a Devanagari script citation, or for that matter a Nastaaliq script citation, on a page such as this. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind reply, I am aware of all that but please note that WP:AGF states, Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. You may have your suspicions, but removing the ref simply because it is Devnagri is non constructive. Perhaps your fellow editors from IPAK may expect a better and less offensive edit from you next time. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

True. Will certainly try. What by the way is IPAK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IPAK from WP:GS/IPAK. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that you yourself had added that Devanagari script citation, and today. I had thought it had been added way back in late February. Had I known it was you, I would not have removed the citation, but asked you on your user talk page. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, a note on the talk page here instead of removal would have felt better. Appreciate your good work in improving Wikipedia. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 05:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change Conflict Status from "ongoing"

With Pakistan recently lifting her airspace , along with no reports of cross-border shelling, airspace incursions, or other military actions since early March, it does not appear that the conflict is still "ongoing". The end of the conflict should either be stated as early March, being the end of cross-border firing, or July 16th, the opening of Pakistani airspace.

Nmurali02 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Given the history of India and Pakistan, I don't see a two-month lull as portent enough for the skirmishes' end. I would suggest that we let it continue. 2019 still has five and a half months left. The key word in the title, in any case, is not "conflict," but "skirmishes." As for the "ongoing" in the infobox, I agree it should be replaced with a more appropriate word. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not really paid attention to the infobox, but why is Jaish-e-Muhammad listed as a belligerent, when the title of the page is India-Pakistan border skirmishes? Some have claimed India to have killed a large number of people in Pakistan; it doesn't matter what political group the Indians think the insinuated dead belong to. The terrorist incident is not an India-Pakistan border skirmish; loss of life in it does not constitute casualties of the skirmishes. There should be two columns: India and Pakistan, as the page name proclaims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler JeM publicly claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

@DBigXray: Yes I understood that, but it was a terrorist attack in India, a spur and a background for the cross-border skirmishes that followed, but not a skirmish in itself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a part of Indo pak Skirmish. Did it happen on the border, not technically. But we have to take a holistic view of this. skipping this on the basis of technicality will not be appropriate as it will impact the readers understandability of the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In the view of most third-party sources, Pakistan was not directly and reliably involved in the terrorist incident at Pulwama, in which a native of Indian-controlled Kashmir set off a car bomb, for which credit was taken by Jaish-e-Muhammad, a group based in Pakistan, which in the past has been rumored to receive material and moral support from elements within Pakistan's government. The Indians were careful to mention that their attack (a true cross border attack by a country) was not a revenge attack, but a preemptive one to head off further terrorist incidents. There is a difference between belligerents in a conflict and perpetrators of an incident. The Iraq War does not mention the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks as belligerents, indeed the September 11 attacks page, does not mention belligerents, only "perpetrators." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

PS Indeed United States invasion of Afghanistan which occurred in direct response to the September 11 attacks does not mention the World Trade Center bombers as belligerents, only the Al Qaeda which fought in Afghanistan. The beginning date or the invasion in October 7, 2001, not September 11, 2001. Similarly the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) does not list the September 11 attackers at belligerents. Had Jaish-e-Muhammad engaged in actual fighting or shelling across the border, it would be another story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Under the "Closure of Pakistani Airspace" section it is mentioned that "The airspace closure led to a loss of US$100 Million for Pakistan". Could someone change the US$100 Million figure to US$50 Million. As Pakistan's aviation minister, Ghulam Sarwar Khan, claims that Pakistan suffered a loss US$50 Million from closure of Airspace. Thanks. Here are the sources:

1) https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/07/18/business/18reuters-pakistan-aviation.html

2) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-restricting-airspace-says-minister-ghulam-sarwar-khan-2071887

3) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-aviation/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-airspace-restrictions-minister-idUSKCN1UD2WU 37.200.138.254 (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

NOt sure this is neutral, but we can say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"According to" should be the wording used, yes. Not sure if it is worth mentioning both or just using the Minister's figure; I'm leaning towards the latter unless we can find other sources using the $100M figure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is one unremarkable Reuters report that has been routinely mirrored in two sources without editorial oversight or responsibility. In other words, it is not a NY Times story, only Reuters feed, mirrored without comment in the NY Times. The bigger question is why the civil costs of a strategic policy employed by one belligerent are notable for mention in a page titled India-Pakistan border skirmishes (2019), which says nothing anywhere about the economic costs of the military offensives or deployments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the section also details losses of several Indian carriers, and that may be the best information available about losses on the Indian side. I find disruption to civil aviation and the financial cost of same to be relevant; that the wider costs are not stated is unfortunate but not imho a reason to remove this information (i.e. make the article worse), provided the figures come from reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the new figure and reference whilst retaining the existing one. Please reactivate this request or start a new one if this is not agreeable. --kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no consensus yet for this. This is a controversial page. We are trying to stick to reliable third party sources; these are neither. See the sources in the lead for a contrast. I don't see that this information is relevant to a "skirmishes" article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here as an uninvolved admin in response to an edit request.

It's news to me that Reuters is not a reliable source (?!), and news to me that we wouldn't want to record that the Pakistani side claimed a lower loss than the Indian media. That's maintaining a neutral stance and it's hard for me to see how it can be controversial. The article is online, so the claim is verifiable. Therefore, as it's from a reliable source, verifiable, and enhances NPOV, I felt I should accept the request, and removal of the section should be debated as a separate issue.

That said, I now see that I have failed to account for the controversy around this topic as a whole and to properly assess consensus as per number 2 in general considerations for handling edit requests.

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Planning_a_request, consensus should be established on the talk page BEFORE a protected edit is requested. To that end, I have commented out the edit request. Please establish consensus before adding it again, at which point another admin or editor can handle the request. --kingboyk (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: Reuters is a news agency. It puts out a glut of news reports every day, most of which do not have any bylines, are posted by the local equivalent of cub reporters in faraway corners of the world. This particular Reuters feed, mirrored without comment by the NYT, has four sentences. Such reports are very different from Reuters stories with bylines, such as this one by Martin Howells and others and carried by another newspaper. The latter is clearly a reliable news report. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Under the "Closure of Pakistani Airspace" section it is mentioned that "The airspace closure led to a loss of US$100 Million for Pakistan". Could someone change the US$100 Million figure to US$50 Million. As Pakistan's aviation minister, Ghulam Sarwar Khan, claims that Pakistan suffered a loss US$50 Million from closure of Airspace. Thanks. Here are the sources:

1) https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/07/18/business/18reuters-pakistan-aviation.html

2) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-restricting-airspace-says-minister-ghulam-sarwar-khan-2071887

3) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-aviation/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-airspace-restrictions-minister-idUSKCN1UD2WU 37.200.138.254 (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

NOt sure this is neutral, but we can say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"According to" should be the wording used, yes. Not sure if it is worth mentioning both or just using the Minister's figure; I'm leaning towards the latter unless we can find other sources using the $100M figure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is one unremarkable Reuters report that has been routinely mirrored in two sources without editorial oversight or responsibility. In other words, it is not a NY Times story, only Reuters feed, mirrored without comment in the NY Times. The bigger question is why the civil costs of a strategic policy employed by one belligerent are notable for mention in a page titled India-Pakistan border skirmishes (2019), which says nothing anywhere about the economic costs of the military offensives or deployments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the section also details losses of several Indian carriers, and that may be the best information available about losses on the Indian side. I find disruption to civil aviation and the financial cost of same to be relevant; that the wider costs are not stated is unfortunate but not imho a reason to remove this information (i.e. make the article worse), provided the figures come from reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the new figure and reference whilst retaining the existing one. Please reactivate this request or start a new one if this is not agreeable. --kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no consensus yet for this. This is a controversial page. We are trying to stick to reliable third party sources; these are neither. See the sources in the lead for a contrast. I don't see that this information is relevant to a "skirmishes" article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here as an uninvolved admin in response to an edit request.

It's news to me that Reuters is not a reliable source (?!), and news to me that we wouldn't want to record that the Pakistani side claimed a lower loss than the Indian media. That's maintaining a neutral stance and it's hard for me to see how it can be controversial. The article is online, so the claim is verifiable. Therefore, as it's from a reliable source, verifiable, and enhances NPOV, I felt I should accept the request, and removal of the section should be debated as a separate issue.

That said, I now see that I have failed to account for the controversy around this topic as a whole and to properly assess consensus as per number 2 in general considerations for handling edit requests.

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Planning_a_request, consensus should be established on the talk page BEFORE a protected edit is requested. To that end, I have commented out the edit request. Please establish consensus before adding it again, at which point another admin or editor can handle the request. --kingboyk (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: Reuters is a news agency. It puts out a glut of news reports every day, most of which do not have any bylines, are posted by the local equivalent of cub reporters in faraway corners of the world. This particular Reuters feed, mirrored without comment by the NYT, has four sentences. Such reports are very different from Reuters stories with bylines, such as this one by Martin Howells and others and carried by another newspaper. The latter is clearly a reliable news report. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Under the "Closure of Pakistani Airspace" section it is mentioned that "The airspace closure led to a loss of US$100 Million for Pakistan". Could someone change the US$100 Million figure to US$50 Million. As Pakistan's aviation minister, Ghulam Sarwar Khan, claims that Pakistan suffered a loss US$50 Million from closure of Airspace. Thanks. Here are the sources:

1) https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/07/18/business/18reuters-pakistan-aviation.html

2) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-restricting-airspace-says-minister-ghulam-sarwar-khan-2071887

3) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-aviation/pakistan-lost-50-million-from-airspace-restrictions-minister-idUSKCN1UD2WU 37.200.138.254 (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

NOt sure this is neutral, but we can say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"According to" should be the wording used, yes. Not sure if it is worth mentioning both or just using the Minister's figure; I'm leaning towards the latter unless we can find other sources using the $100M figure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is one unremarkable Reuters report that has been routinely mirrored in two sources without editorial oversight or responsibility. In other words, it is not a NY Times story, only Reuters feed, mirrored without comment in the NY Times. The bigger question is why the civil costs of a strategic policy employed by one belligerent are notable for mention in a page titled India-Pakistan border skirmishes (2019), which says nothing anywhere about the economic costs of the military offensives or deployments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the section also details losses of several Indian carriers, and that may be the best information available about losses on the Indian side. I find disruption to civil aviation and the financial cost of same to be relevant; that the wider costs are not stated is unfortunate but not imho a reason to remove this information (i.e. make the article worse), provided the figures come from reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the new figure and reference whilst retaining the existing one. Please reactivate this request or start a new one if this is not agreeable. --kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no consensus yet for this. This is a controversial page. We are trying to stick to reliable third party sources; these are neither. See the sources in the lead for a contrast. I don't see that this information is relevant to a "skirmishes" article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here as an uninvolved admin in response to an edit request.

It's news to me that Reuters is not a reliable source (?!), and news to me that we wouldn't want to record that the Pakistani side claimed a lower loss than the Indian media. That's maintaining a neutral stance and it's hard for me to see how it can be controversial. The article is online, so the claim is verifiable. Therefore, as it's from a reliable source, verifiable, and enhances NPOV, I felt I should accept the request, and removal of the section should be debated as a separate issue.

That said, I now see that I have failed to account for the controversy around this topic as a whole and to properly assess consensus as per number 2 in general considerations for handling edit requests.

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Planning_a_request, consensus should be established on the talk page BEFORE a protected edit is requested. To that end, I have commented out the edit request. Please establish consensus before adding it again, at which point another admin or editor can handle the request. --kingboyk (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: Reuters is a news agency. It puts out a glut of news reports every day, most of which do not have any bylines, are posted by the local equivalent of cub reporters in faraway corners of the world. This particular Reuters feed, mirrored without comment by the NYT, has four sentences. Such reports are very different from Reuters stories with bylines, such as this one by Martin Howells and others and carried by another newspaper. The latter is clearly a reliable news report. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

India scraps Pakistani autonomy

Add it, its an important world event, the current scenario of this articles. Pakistan is condemning and disputing the move. Protests are reported in both Indian and Pakistani Kashmir. What is the point of claiming the conflict is ongoing if you ate so LAZY to update it. This is all over the world news. 103.230.104.33 (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please write the content that you would like to include into this article on this talk page here and also give reliable sources for that info. if it is acceptable someone will include it. be WP:BOLD regards, --DBigXrayᗙ 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

in "Other notable incidents" add

Helicopter Crash in Budgam

6 IAF personnel were killed in the Mi-17 V5 helicopter crash on morning of Febraury 27, 2019. Initial reports had suggested that it developed a technical snag in the air and swirled to the ground.. Following the findings of Court of Inquiry the Indian Air Force (IAF) acknowledged on October 4 that it was due to "friendly fire" and admitted a "big mistake". The Court of Inquiry confirmed that the copter was shot by a Israeli-origin ground based Spyder surface-to-air missile of the IAF. Ciybersal (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not connected to Kashmir. Philroc (c) 23:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Jaishe Muhammad is linked as being with Pakistan

Why is this so - they should be in the middle section - please update it. Pakistan rejects Jaishe Mohammad Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean middle section?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Indian Casualties

Pakistan stated that 60 indian soldiers were killed.

I was thinking this could be added to the indian casualties section, perhaps with '(pakistani claim)' added next to the figure if needed.
Source(s): https://www.dawn.com/news/1513045

https://www.brecorder.com/2019/10/26/538289/over-60-indian-soldiers-have-been-killed-by-pak-army-at-loc-since-feb-27-asif-ghafoor/ https://www.pressreader.com/pakistan/daily-messenger/20191027/281925954805009 https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/546976-60-indian-troops-killed-at-loc-since-feb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re12345 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)