@Gazoth: Hey, I think we don't need these claims for anyone, what if they had claimed that they have killed more than 400+ soldiers, it wouldn't be that good to add on any side. The both sides have claimed and accepted their own casualties which is i guess the neutral and acceptable according to the war casualties rule. We don't have any claim for other side in any other pages like in (2014-2015), (2001-2002), (2011) and (2013) The claims are also not going to be added in (2019). Also this 138 soldiers killed in 2017 from (economic times) sounds very dubious as it literally contradicts itself as it stated
d in source, "Asked about the fatalities on the Pakistani side, the Army refused to comment" isn't the contradiction? There is no mention of which intelligence tell them. I hope you understand. @Fowler&fowler: could you help there, about the claims? Xdxo2169 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Xdxo2169, mentioning claims of both sides when they differ is standard practice to maintain NPOV. If you have issues with individual claims, take it up separately. —Gazoth (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- @Gazoth:No, i don't have an issue with any individual claims, what i am saying is we really don't need claims for rivals when they have literally stated their own casualties. Besides the fact of economic times i don't even believe in Pakistan's claim about Indian casualties. We could just let alone the number of of casualties what Pakistani and Indian sources has stated for their own country. About NPOV we did not do the same thing with 2001-2002,2011,2013,2014-2015 and 2019 standoffs. My point is to remove the claims and just leave what their own sources have claimed about their own casualties. Xdxo2169 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Xdxo2169, differing claims about own losses are common in wars/conflicts. The general consensus is to handle the neutrality issue by presenting both claims. If a side mentions their own losses, it doesn't mean that it's the truth. What you believe or don't is quite immaterial here. Regarding the other pages that you mentioned, another user who had a similar issue with this page removed the claim in one of the other pages too. I have restored the claim in that page. Nevertheless, you are making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument and avoiding a policy-based discussion, which is quite unconvincing. —Gazoth (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- GazothCould we find another source which had said the same because it's literally only one source about 138 Pakistan's soldiers killed which is quite dubious, isn't? Xdxo2169 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Xdxo2169, again, an issue with one claim is not a valid reason to remove all claims from the other side. The Economic Times is a reliable source and this report is from Press Trust of India, a widely syndicated Indian news agency. It is quite sufficient for a claim that is explicitly labelled as Indian. Only fringe theories requires multiple sources and a statement of casualties is definitely not a fringe theory. —Gazoth (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
