Talk:2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Timeline

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)

Sectioning

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)

Also, the "Surgical strikes claim" section was also rewritten using international WP:THIRDPARTY sources. We shouldn't mix them up with Indian/Pakistani sources. The countries of the sources matter because of WP:THIRDPARTY criterion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!Aumnamahashiva (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan and Jaish on the same side?

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)

I think that is really for Pakistan to decide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, and Pakistan claims it is not associated with Jaish. It has banned it.VR _talk 05:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You have seen the source that says that it hasn't been effective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Confirmed reports

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)

Wikipedia article is POV?

Mar4d How do you claim a full Wikipedia article to be POV?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Because this article is on the military confrontation, not terrorism allegations. Thus, your addition of the link comes across as both undue and pointy behaviour. I hope you adhere to WP:NPOV when editing such articles, because your edits are displaying signs of tendentiousness. Please take note of WP:ARBIPA. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: More signs. Besides editing the wrong section, the article was already linked under the template's 'Adherents' section. I am going to ask you again to stop POV-spamming articles. Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Please elaborate on what do you mean by "military confrontation, not terrorism allegations". The article talks and is centres on the attack on militants. Check out Media usage section in militant which clearly states that this word is widely used to refer to terrorist. Further, there is mention of LeT, JeM, etc. I don't know which military organisation do they belong to. Please enlighten me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:41, 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)

Several sections need to be merged

""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)

"Successful" surgical strikes

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)

Captured soldier

This edit removes from the lead that India has confirmed one of its soldiers were captured. Why? VR _talk 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've restored that sourced information, it is well known. And as long as India's claims are mentioned in the lead, the Pakistani claims are to stay there, with attribution of course. Mar4d (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

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)

It is not proper to break up, expand, contract, or explain a direct quote that was used in a reliable secondary source. Those words have lots of meanings. We can't rely on ourselves to understand them or explain them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:QuoteFarm. This is wikipedia, not Wikiquote. We are supposed to break up and put together sentences so as to write in an Encyclopedic style that is easily understood by the reader. And I dunno if you "understand" the quote, but I sure do, and feel very comfortable paraphrasing it.VR _talk 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing

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)

Requested move 1 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; keep at present name 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation; and delete redirect 2016 Indian surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

---

2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir → 2016 Indian surgical strike in PoK – 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)

Note: "PoK" is the Indian term for "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", aka Pakistan-administered Kashmir (officially Azad Kashmir). Mar4d (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reject per WP:NPOV Those are Indian media reports which you have quoted. They are not a reliable source for neutral coverage of this event. I have moved the title to "military confrontation" per neutral sources and WP:NPOV. The article can include Indian surgical strike claims, and Pakistani counter-claims (that it was not a surgical strike, but rather border violations resulting in two Pakistani soldier deaths) that way. Mar4d (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't want to be the part of WP:BATTLE nor am not going to arguments on this but I believe this is the same case as Operation Neptune Spear which resulted in the Death of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan and later then-president Musharraf and others emphatically denied bin Laden was in Pakistan so I think it's should be redirected to 2016 Indian surgical strike in PoK not because am from India but because there is a massive media attention worldwide from many major international news websites/channels same as Bill william compton described in the AfD. GSS (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. Neptune Spear isn't related to this confrontation, besides the events surrounding that operation were verified in reliable third party sources. Here, we have no such coverage apart from Indian establishment and press claims. And they are not a reliable source given the partisan and jingoistic reporting. The international reports so far have mentioned the Indian claims and Pakistani counter-claims, which this article will follow. Whereas, the Indian media reports are entirely one-sided. Mar4d (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to September 2016 Indian surgical strike VarunFEB2003 12:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a rationale. Mar4d (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support move (Of course, PoK should be replaced with Pakistan-administered Kashmir). The international media have been using the term even though they haven't yet been able to verify it. India has officially used the term, and it will be its problem to present evidence when it feels fit to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Further comment: The original name "military raid" would have been acceptable as a stop gap, even though it is not fully accurate (no reports of engaging with the opposite military or the general populations). "Military confrontation" is certainly WP:OR because no engagement between the two militaries has been reported. Cross-border shelling, the Pakistani claim, is hardly a "military confrontation".-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

India has officially used the term, and it will be its problem to present evidence when it feels fit to do so - So you are admitting the term is unverified, in addition to supporting the WP:OR title despite knowing it is a claim. I think you need to read how WP:TITLE works. We simply don't name pages based on post-Uri attack war rhetoric and media propaganda, which in this incident is blatantly obvious. Mar4d (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What about WP:TITLE? It explicitly permits WP:POVNAMEs when they are COMMONNAMEs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not applicable, because here, the proposed title itself is based on a disputed POV (not an accepted POV) attributed to one side. It is unencyclopedic as far as factual verification is concerned. Also, as you pointed out, Pakistani and Indian forces are exchanging fire, and two Pakistan soldiers have died. And Pakistan have detained an Indian soldier, as reported by CNN. You make no sense when saying "no reports of engaging with the opposite military or the general populations". Mar4d (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep current title - After the last couple of days thinking about it, I have decided that there is no way to settle the dispute without India presenting evidence for surgical strikes. The current title works, even if I am not fully satisfied with its accuracy. If and when India presents evidence, we can revisit the issue. Let us put the naming issue behind, and focus on developing the content using WP:THIRDPARTY sources as far as possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think either "Surgical strike" or "Military raid" should be used. These are the two terms which are being used in the media.Ghatus (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

By the Indian government and media. Both are not reliable and their version of events are disputed. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The terms military raid and surgical strike are what the Indian media claim it to be. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article cannot be named either as the very existence of the strike is disputed. Indian reports are not reliable or sufficient to declare that a "raid" took place. The reports Kautilya linked are mere reproductions of Indian claims. Reports in third party sources have also covered the Pakistani claims. As such, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE naming policy expressly prevent this article from having a POV name. Mar4d (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Pakistan has used its denial card far too often, as GSS-1987 has pointed out. But Pakistani officials are admitting privately of the possibility of the strikes:

“The Indian military was wiser and didn’t go for a deeper strike. They just fulfilled the wishes of the political leadership without causing any major disaster,” said Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. “Only two people died, and in the Indo-Pak context, two people dying on the border is almost routine.”

It seems that the international media have decided which side they will go with, tentatively. If your only objection is that Pakistani government denies it, you are fighting a loosing battle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are misquoting the source. Durrani's referring to the attack which resulted in two Pakistani casualties. That is actually what Pakistan has stated. India claims the contrary, i.e. it conducted a massive cross border 'raid' and inflicted up to 50 militant casualties (whose bodies interestingly have vanished into thin air, while the location of the 'surgical strikes' is not known). Mar4d (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have quoted the source verbatim. That is not called "misquoting". The quote, from a respectable member of the Pakistani establishment, uses the term "strike", a term that you object to. Let me leave it at that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Read your verbatim source again: “Only two people died, and in the Indo-Pak context, two people dying on the border is almost routine (emphasis). Durrani is reiterating what Pakistan said - India violated the LoC, killed two Pakistani soldiers. That is not what a surgical strike is. There is nothing in the quote regarding India's border raid. In fact, the paragraph following the quote is self-explanatory:

“When reminded that the Indian government has said the casualties were in “double digits,” Durrani said: “We say two were killed and they will say 100. The truth is lost between India and Pakistan when the first bullet is fired.”.”

Mar4d (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Official statement of Indian DGMO said :"along" LOC. It is understood that it was not a "deep inside" strike, any sort of infilteration is denied from the Pakistani side, Pakistan also claims their military was not involved- Indian spokespersons are also claiming that it was an anti-terror ops and not an act of war - so word military confrontaion may not be proper. In my view renaming should be done as - 2016 Indian Army operation at LOC or 2016 Indian Army strike at LOC. Title can not be more neutral than this, the article may carry claims & counterclaims of both sides. --Manoj Khurana (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Further comment It was a "confrontation" because it elicited a military response from Pakistan (and resulted in casualties as per them). The casualties may be disputed but the 'response' isn't disputed, as cross-border shelling is continuing on the LoC (see the sources). Your argument demonstrates the flaw in the discussion. The title has to stay neutral in any case, not the Indian POV. The UN, which is impartial, has acknowledged "ceasefire violations" but not any strikes. Mar4d (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong reject Indians notoriously hawkish media should not get a say on wikipedia the world agrees this was a cross border clash or raid no western outlet agrees with Indias absurd "surgical" claim its to quel the chest thumpers desire for retaliation in India nothing more we must not give in to Indian nationalist demands. Inaghetto (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• This user has only one edit outside this. Seems like a fake user account deliberately created for vandalism.Inaghetto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).--Dude (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

World agrees? Please don't talk in air.This is not how wikipedia works.Provide reliable legitimate sources.--Dude (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support move There was no true military confrontation, and it was really between the terror groups and the indian army. The surgical strikes are also much more recognized among media, and provide ample reliable sources for support. Vagbhata2 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

By the same token, there was no surgical strike. Simply relying on jingoistic media reports from India does not satisfy verifiability, which is fundamental. And if there was no military confrontation, then why are sources (including Indian media) reporting Pakistani military casualties? Mar4d (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Reject: The current title of the article 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation is most NPOV title at this point and it should not be changed to something like 2016 Indian surgical strike in PoK. Such strike is not proven by any neutral reliable sources and proposed title will reflect a POV title. "PoK" is internationally known as Azad Kashmir. If we accept such title then we should move Azad Kashmir to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir to Indian-occupied Kashmir. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Reject/oppose move - calling it a surgical strike, raid or any such thing is highly biased Indian POV. Indian media advertizes it as raid, Pakistani media rejects it and neutral media is split? This is a current event and avoiding [WP:RECENTISM]], we should wait for time to confirm this and in the mean time either stick to status quo or better rename this article to 2016 India-Pakistan border skirmish which is most neutral and has been used for the incidents of previous years. This way whatever each party claims can go into the claims section without making the event itself biased and therefore WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@TopGun: That's a good suggestion, and one I'm not opposed to. We have precedents in the form of other articles involving cross-border incidents, namely 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish, 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes and India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present). This is indeed the most neutral and inclusive term to cover the conflict under current circumstances. Mar4d (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support- move to September 2016 Indian surgical strike As declared in press conference by Indian DGMO (Director General Of Military Operations) Indian forces attacked terrorist launch pads along LOC. As there was NO confrontation with pakistan military then how can the name be Military Confrontation. Seems some users are attacking many related pages owing to extreme nationalism. --Dude (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but it seems like a lot of similarly-minded users, you haven't carefully gone through the discussion above. The Indian DGMO's "press conference" is not reliable for anything, because Wikipedia is not the Indian Army's mouthpiece nor bound to them. Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX. The DGMO can, and should, be quoted and attributed for his statements, and the content is doing a decent job of that. Wikipedia's purpose is to present information in balance and neutrally. Mar4d (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And your claim of no military confrontation is again not true, please refer to international reports (Al Jazeera) (Reuters). Mar4d (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Reject:Not a single independent RS that supports the Indian claim of a surgical strike. Moreover, the new title does not meet WP:NPOV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• If this article is kept it should have a neutral title. 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation is NPOV. A better title would be 2016 India–Pakistan skirmish.VR _talk 23:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Reject: There was no "surgical strike" according to any independent, third party, neutral observer. The UN Observers Group has not corroborated the claim of any "surgical strike" nor have the locals living in the area confirmed such claims. cӨde1+6^TP 03:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support move- Jayprakash12345 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: everyone whose coming here and saying "media is using the term surgical strike", should first read up on scare quotes. The media is writing "surgical strike", not surgical strike, and in the English language those two are very different. Again, read scare quote.VR _talk 17:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Reject Current name is looking perfect for this article no need to change for proposed one. Also POK is not any place it is just a name giving by some community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by सुमित सिंह (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Reject In addition to the disputed PoK terminology, "surgical strike" is being used in scare-quotes by some media outlets[5], and could be taken as implying claims about the nature of the incident that aren't verifiable. I can see a case for "skirmish" over "military confrontation" (though I don't buy that direct engagement is necessary for a confrontation—I'd call "tense firing in each others" general direction' a "contfrontation"). Or a case for the even vaguer "incident". Or a case for re-merging this with the article on India-Pakistan border skirmishes. But the actual proposal in the RfC has no good rationale behind it. Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per WP:NPOV. The present tile is consistent with the norm of naming articles.The official Indian sources have always used the term PoK/Pakistan occupied Kashmir and as far as I remember, there is a consensus on Wikipedia regarding this and no where terms like India occupied or Pakistan occupied Kashmir have been used on Wikipedia in general sense.  sami  ^talk 08:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussions

• I don't understand why Mar4d rejecting each and everything which go against Pakistan same as he's not agree to include this statement of Hafiz Saeed. GSS (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• I dont understand why this article is not merged/redirected to India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) - why was it split? This happens almost every year on one thing or another and the two countries skirmish on and off... while Uri attack is not, this aftermath skirmish is trivia. Calling it anything apart from a border skirmish would be POV of either side (confrontation is OK, but skirmish is more in line with titles for previous years). I dont really care if some one starts split off into this article from 2016 onwards but better close that article to 2014-15 in that case.. don't make it confusing having two articles about it; which would make it a POV fork. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Reviews from more neutral users really needed. What I see here is unfruitful war of words between Indian & Pakistani users.Also it can be noticed that some new accounts have been created deliberately for commenting on similar articles on this event like this Inaghetto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --Dude (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added an RfC tag to facilitate that. Irrespective of the nationality of users, the real issue here is the use of WP:POV sources to describe an event, and in that course, a violation of WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS and most significantly WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the RM tag which shouldn't be used in conjunction with RFC for timing reasons, and conflicts in closure procedures, etc. This is also outside the scope of RM now; the page is AfD tagged, and the page was already moved citing WP:POVTITLE — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This article core subject is not about the military confrontation but about the raid on militant camps. Overall impression of article also focus on attack on militants and collateral damage to Pakistani Military. So the title military confrontation is biased towards Pakistani viewpoint. It's better to use word "militant" at least in the title -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In reviewing this little skirmish, I find myself agreeing with TopGun: Merge with a broader article on the endless incidents of back and forth violence in the region. Some of the passionate voices above are right to ask why American editors should have the right to discount Indian and Pakistani media when US media are recognised internationally as monumentally biased and yet comprise such a large part of the 'evidence' for so many thousands of articles about America. It is hypocrisy to chide others from that patronising position of American exceptionalism. Nevertheless, there will not be a resolution to this issue while Indian and Pakistani editors feud the way their countries do, about every little detail. The immediate solution ought to be to delete this article while moving its sustainable particulars into the article TopGun spoke of, maybe allowing both sides to characterise their points of view by stating: 'XYZ characterised this as a ABC manouever, while RST called it a DEF incursion'. Invited to comment by Legobot, definitely not aligned with anyone in that part of the world. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Time to probably close the article

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)

I am glad to hear it, IP. However, there is no concept of "closing" an article. Once the daily news feed stops, we will get an opportunity to go back and clean it up. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The daily news feed? If you are referring to reports about the conforntation, as I already said there has been no report of any incident or casualty for a past week. 117.241.116.22 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Other than the 2016 Nagrota army base attack? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Nagrota attack was done by terrorists, not the Pakistani Army even though it gives support to them. This article is about direct confrontations between the two nations. Acts of terrorists don't matter for the article as long as the Pakistani Army isn't directly involved. 117.220.22.110 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 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)

I already pointed out that there's been no incident of military confrontation since November 23, except an injury recieved by a BSF personnel on 2 December which by its description cannot be considered much of a notable event and wasn't even mentioned in some print newspapers. I only found it through online newspapers Not to forget the LoC has been active for a long time with ceasefire violations, even when there's been no actual ongoing confrontation. Are we keep showing this as ongoing because of a non-notable incident? I doubt any source will say that it has "ended" anyway. There has been a lull certainly though. 61.0.202.66 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thats not true at all, there have been firefights along the line of control since November 23rd. For example there were firefights near Uri on November 29th [[6]]. Just because no one has died does not mean the skirmishes have ended.XavierGreen (talk)

Well I didn't know about that. The popular news sites didn't mention it I think. But regardless, an incident on LoC is always going to happen after a few days, it is quite active. And again this doesn't seem noticeable. As I said it is subsided in nature and non-notable as compared to previous incidents, that is why we cannot keep the article ongoing. We are talking about a consistent pattern of hostility here. 61.0.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The continuing "consistant pattern of hostility" is the very reason why the conflict is still marked as ongoing.XavierGreen (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

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 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015)), 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)

I agree. Also, India claims that militant groups were involved, Pakistan claims that the clashes were between India and Pakistan only, and no militants were involved on Sep 29. So the name "India-Pakistan military confrontation" isn't very accurate or neutral. A better name would be "2016 Kashmir clashes" or something like that.VR _talk 16:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it still ongoing? If no then why is is still open?

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)

The confrontation is not currently going on, 117.199.92.36 (talk). You don't seem well acquainted with how Wikipedia works. There is no concept of 'closing' articles. Editors are free to edit any article as long as they can improve it. If you meant granting a protection to the page, note that the ending of an incident reflected in an article is not a criteria for doing so (WP:PROTECT). Please check out WP:TWA if you're new to Wikipedia. Also, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you need any kind of assistance. RoCo^(talk) 09:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Oops, saw what you meant. True, it must be ended. RoCo^(talk) 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Two sections

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)

So, you propose something at 04:24, and carry it out twenty minutes later? That doesn't exactly sound like a "proposal", does it? It is more like a declaration.

In any case, you are wrong about the "surgical strikes" section. The old version of the section was sourced to WP:THIRDPARTY international sources of high calibre, instead of all the mumbo jumbo you find in the local newspapers of all kinds. I think this has to go first. I don't have the time or inclination to sort through the humongous amount of propaganda and misinformation in the timeline section, including your own WP:OR commentary at the front. I am putting back the old "Surgical strikes" claim section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What you call the "Indian version" is hardly that. The Indian government has been pretty tight-lipped beyond the original statement by DGMO. The media, hungry for information, have been contacting various (unnamed) officials and reporting whatever they could gather. We have no idea what if any of that is true. When things settle down, we have to sift through this material and pick out the best sources and throw out the rest. All of this also needs to be precisely attributed rather than stated as fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If there's WP:OR it needs to be removed. However, summaries based on facts discussed later is not WP:OR. Leading paragraphs don't require citations (WP:LEADCITE), but if you're gonna be stubborn, I can certainly provide citations.

You can't make disputed claims about something you haven't even told the reader about. Hence the timeline needs to come first.

If anything under the "Indian version" is not the official Indian version, then please remove it.VR _talk 03:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention, you introduced a LOT of duplicate material. We don't need to tell the same story twice in two different sections.VR _talk 03:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Kautilya, please copy and paste here which sourced content I removed? (Note, I've summarized various things, but not removed them completely). I'll self-revert and re-instate that material. It's certainly possible I may have made a mistake, though I'm usually pretty careful.VR _talk 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Vice regent gaming the edit restrictions

RegentsPark can you decide whether you want to allow this kind of behaviour under your edit restrictions?

• Vice regent made a bold edit [7], moving or eliminating content sourced to high quality WP:THIRDPARTY sources (The section titled "Surgical strikes" claim).
• I explained above why it is not acceptable and reinstated the old material [8].
• He redid the edit again [9], without addressing any of my objections and waiting for consensus.
• He also reinstated unsourced content that I deleted, claiming WP:LEADCITE. (But LEADCITE tells him to provide sources for content that is challenged or likely to be challenged.)

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)

I'm not sure what your objective is here. I notice that you haven't responded to my latest comment above. In the 4 points you describe above, you say you reverted once, and I reverted once. That's hardly an edit war. (Regarding your specific allegations, e g unsourced content), I addressed them above and am waiting for your response.VR _talk 15:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It will be an edit war, unless you begin to address the concerns raised. You are trying to do BRR, whereas the recommended process is BRD. My concerns are, simply stated: (i) deletion of sourced content, in particularly THIRDPARTY sourced content, (ii) addition of unsourced content, and (iii) reinstating edits without achieving consensus. Is that clear enough? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you see my comment above? I asked you to copy and paste here the specific content I deleted so that I can restore it. I know that I reworded stuff, but I don't recall deleting sourced content. If I made a mistake, please pinpoint exactly where.VR _talk 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The reinstated "Surgical strike" claim section [10] and the current version [11] have only one paragraph in common (referring to the Ban Ki-Moon statement). Where is the rest of it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have referred the issue to WP:DRN. Please discuss it there (as per the rules of DRN of course). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 7 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)

• Since 8 October Katuily didn't bother to respond to this, yet he just reverted my edits. This is ridiculous. I took the time to explain things in detail, and he prefers to not even discuss things.VR _talk 18:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Respond to what? If there are two copies of a piece of text, how do you decide what to delete? Common sense dictates that you keep the official version, sourced to THIRDPARTY sources, and delete the unofficial copy. Your tactic here is quite the backwards. This is not the way to go about doing things. I have said above that I have opened WP:DRN case. Further discussion should happen there, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the dispute centers around where the material should go and what the wording should look like. If it can't be resolved on the talk page, then DRN is the best place to take it. VR, perhaps you should consider agreeing to the DRN case and seeing where that goes. More eyes are always a good thing. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya: "Respond to what?" My comment above, at 05:06, 8 October 2016.

"Common sense dictates that you keep the official version, sourced to THIRDPARTY sources, and delete the unofficial copy" They are both the exact same copies, just worded differently and placed in different sections. If it is an official copy, why are you opposed to it being placed in the section entitled "Indian version" and "Pakistani version".

@regentspark: I'm open to discussing this at any forum, be it here or DRN, provided that discussion actually happens. So far Kautilya has indicated he doesn't like my version but doesn't really discuss anything specific regarding wording and location.VR _talk 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, to repeat myself, once a DRN case has been opened that is where further discussion needs to happen, mediated by a third party editor. I do not wish to continue this section any further because it is merely talking across each other instead of talking to each other. DRN is the standard dispute-resolution mechanism. That is what is recommended for situations like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Second round

@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:

• The "Surgical strikes" claim section should mention the Indian claims and Pakistani counterclaims at a high level. All this material is available in WP:THIRDPARTY sources and there is no need to use Indian/Pakistani sources. The Timeline section (which was originally called the Details of the operation before this[12] edit) should describe the details of the operation as best as we can gather them from the best quality sources, and to stick to consensus as far as possible. Outliers like India Live Today etc should be ignored.
• Regarding the wording, we should be careful to use "India" or "Pakistan" for only the statements made by Indian/Pakistani officials speaking on behalf of their countries. Random newsreports attributed to unnamed sources cannot be called "India" or "Pakistan". Such reports should be attributed appropriately to the kind of source they are coming from. For example, your attempt to justify "India claimed" with a source that reproduces TV reports [13] is quite off the mark-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to state what both parties believe happened first, before we start discussing which one is true and which is false. Do you agree that the reader needs to know the claims first, before he is bombarded with arguments from both sides? That's why I wanted a simple Timeline with "Indian version" and "Pakistani version" first.VR _talk 04:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there are four parties, not two. The Indian and Pakistani governments, and the Indian and Pakistani media. The Indian government said basically that it carried out "surgical strikes" and there were "significant casualties". The Pakistani army said that there was only "cross-border fire" and the Prime Minister condemned "unprovoked naked aggression". That is all there was. Do you know of anything more about what the governments said? Let us agree on that first before going on to media reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything reported by reliable sources to have been said by the Indian or Pakistani goverments, can be considered to be such. We take reliable sources at their face value. If a major newspaper says "Indian army officials said XYZ", then XYZ is the official Indian position on Wikipedia.

Also Sharif's condemnation of the event is not a description of the event, its a reaction to it. Hence it belongs in a separate section.VR _talk 05:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, we don't necessarily take them at face value. WP:NPOV says 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.
• As for Sharif's statement, any conclusions that you are trying to draw from it constitutes WP:OR. He called it what he called it. End of story. We report it verbatim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• is there any particular example you are referring to where you disagree with the face value of what a reliable source is saying?
• Summarizing quotes is not WP:OR. Nor is categorizing information.VR _talk 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: to respond on the above when he gets the chance.VR _talk 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The Hindu and The Times of India, the most reputed newspapers of India, didn't publish any of these unofficial reports, which, to me, means that their reliability is suspect. On the second point, you can't keep insisting that you should paraphrase a direct quote when the reliable source (Washington Post, in this case) put it in full. You are trying to add your own understanding of what it means. That is WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Again, what is the exact example that was not reported by reliable sources? Can you copy and paste it here? Then I'll either find reliable sources for it, or agree that it is not reliably sourced.
• Reliable sources put a lot of things in full. If we also put them in full the article would be very long and hard to read. Paraphrasing is not WP:OR and I'm prepared to discuss that at any discussion board. BTW, where did you get the idea that paraphrasing is OR? Is there anything in WP:OR that actually says that?VR _talk 03:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Didn't we already take this to WP:DRN? I do realize that my pace is slow. But not sure how that changes anything. All the comments and evidence are above. If you don't have any objections to my proposed changes, then maybe I should go ahead and make them.VR _talk 04:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid your "proposed changes" are lost in the noise, and I can't see them clearly. Please state them explicitly. Open a new section if you would like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Third round

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)

To these proposals, I have stated my objections from the beginning. The media reports citing unnamed "official sources" are unreliable. I have also pointed out that India's top news papers The Hindu and The Times of India did not report any of these speculative reports.

As for the duplication, my solution is simple: just get rid of the sections titled "Indian version" and "Pakistani version". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The sections titled "Indian version" and "Pakistani version" are not duplication, because the two countries are saying two different things. If both countries were actually agreeing with each other, we wouldn't be having this debate.

You don't seem to have responded to where I said "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." So I'll go ahead and make the changes and we can discuss if you disapprove of them.VR _talk 05:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from the TOI source, which I had added

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). —MBL ^Talk 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't just synthesise your own numbers (WP:SYNTH). The latest sourced version of the article had 39 casualties, and if we go further back, it was 33 to 37. The article is updated for every incident. There is no way that adds up to 35 if you include the four recent casualties. You need to either provide a source which point blank mentions 35, or not conjure up your own figures. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source that very clearly says that India lost 13 soldiers in 2016 and 35 in all (till 24 December 2017) due to ceasefire violations by Pakistan. And no, basic arithmetic is not synthesis, read WP:CALC, then read WP:AVRC. —MBL ^Talk 05:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and you don't have a source that "point blank" mentions 43 either. —MBL ^Talk 05:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d The numbers are not always updated after every addition and sometimes double counted by different editors. So this argument that 43 was present earlier is not the gospel truth but just a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am not sure if the above numbers are correct or for that matter any of the numbers in that infobox are correct. I recommend we tally the numbers again for all values aka (Indian and Pakistani claims on both sides) with the sources provided on this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think the precise numbers matter that much, except for those of us fiddling with the numbers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, Mar4d is referring to this version of the article which had the death count at 33—37 killed. Since we have official figures, I think we should not rely on figures from the media anymore.

• Here are the figures from 2016:
• Government officials put the Indian Army's 2016 death toll at 13 killed,[14] so both these sources:[15][16] goes straight into the trash can.
• Here are the figures from 2017:
• According to a Home Ministry official, 8 civilians and 16 security personnel were killed in Pakistan firing till 30 September 2017
• An army jawan was killed on October 3 in ceasefire violation by Pakistan. Plus, an Army jawan and a porter were killed in Pakistani firing on 12 October
• An army porter was killed on October 21
• A constable of BSF was killed in Pakistani firing on November, 2
• Four soldiers, including a Major rank officer were killed on 24 December in Pakistani firing.

Even now, the death toll would be: 13 + 16 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 38. —MBL ^Talk 05:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that is fine. As long as no figures are being created out of thin air... Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Pakistani casualties (India claims)

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)

Mar4d and MBlaze Lightning we might have to do the math again on this. I think Mar4d edit is wrong since it discounts loses in 2016 (as per the talk above) and MBlaze Lightning is wrong because I have already counted 20 killed in action for this year. The new source does not state if these are separate or not. If we want to get into the nitty gritty of the numbers then it would be ideal to discuss them here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My two cents regarding this: As per the sources given for Indian claims, there's 138 for 2017 and 20 this year. We still need to determine 2016 figures if they are available, in order to ascertain that the total Indian figure crosses 200. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, have you actually read the refs? —MBL ^Talk 13:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d I would recommend to read the sources and the page very carefully (which you should since you have been active on this page for some time). The numbers you are stating are only for claims by the Indian Army. This does not include the claims of BSF for Pakistani Rangers along the IB in Jammu. So have a look at all the numbers which translate to BSF and Indian Army claims from September 2016 to present. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 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. —MBL ^Talk 08:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning The latest numbers point to 23 in 2018([18]). Now this does seem consistent with the number twenty you have plus three they claim to have killed on 20 February. My point in removing reverting your edit was to prevent double counting of the same number. I have updated the infobox with these numbers 7(15 January), 3(20 February) so we will have to account for that. We also have 10-12(4 January), 4-10(19 January) which are BSF claims for Pakistani Rangers and are different than Indian Army's claims. So IMO, we should update the number by 13 which is the difference not 20. Let me know if you think I am missing something. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Cheers. —MBL ^Talk 13:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani casualties

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)

Mar4d I would appreciate if you raised your concerns here without reverting edits. Those figures were edited by EkoGraf. I think they had to use two separate sources (which quote Pakistan officials directly) over the same time period since Pakistan did not release them in the same statement but released them in different statementshe (more like releasing a statement and the other was conveying it to the Pakistani senate) thus causing it to be across different news reports (but they are within the same day). Let's wait for EkoGraf to reply back on what is rationale was before we proceed further. Thanks.

EkoGraf I think you have a done a commendable job of cleaning up the info-box which was becoming a pain to navigate. But there are concerns about those numbers and we should go over them to ensure that this meets Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It still fails verification because neither source provides a figure on military casualties. Hence, using the two estimates (the 2nd source only mentions civilian casualties) to create a number is WP:SYNTH. It also doesn't match the sources and updates included on the article throughout. There needs to be a source which directly indicates the figure, only then it can be relied upon. Mar4d (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, your argument doesn't hold water. Both reports were published on the same day and both cite Pakistani government officials; therefore it's reasonable to conclude that 35 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives in innumerable military skirmishes with the Indian army in 2017. And like I said before, basic arithmetic isn't synthesis, it is permitted by WP:CALC. Anyway, going by your logic, what you're doing is synthesis too.[19] MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "basic arithmetic", because there are multiple sources and each source has conflicting numbers on civilian casualties. The Dawn source quotes 87 (which is a combined figure), Reuters states 53 whereas in this most recent source, the Pakistani government states 46 civilians killed in 2017. We can't rely on these reports therefore to calculate military casualties. The 65 figure is not only totally unsourced and unreliable, it fails verification and contradicts the sources on the article as well as virtually all reporting on Pakistani casualties to date. We will need a source to state that there were this number of military casualties in 2017, only then we can change it. Failing that, it is unreliable and cannot be added. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d I have to agree with MBlaze Lightning since the Pakistani Army has stated that it won't release the military casualties because of security concerns ([20]). In that absence this is not a WP:SYNTH but WP:CALC. Yes there might be conflicting numbers based on what where the stats are soured from. In one case, they come from the Pakistani military officials and another from the SDMA. But there is no reason to not mention a range of number based on these sources versus waiting for –a source to show up since it never will. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, you are reinstating unsourced material which is not acceptable under basic Wikipedia policy. I have already shown above there are multiple civilian figures, and not one of the sources you purport to base your figures on mention a thing about army figures. It is unsourced and fails verification. Which part of this is difficult for you? Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Now, you're merely repeating your refuted argument. The source you cited is quoting an obscure organization, whereas the "52" civilian casualty figure is straight from the horse's mouth i.e., from the Pakistani military.[21][22][23][24][25][26] MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the same article copied over multiple sources? On the one hand, we have 53, on the other hand 46 (straight from the government). We don't even have one figure here, let alone a mention of army casualties in any of your sources above. Clearly, it is a fake number with no source or basis. Mar4d (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because the government has released different numbers does not make us not list them. This is exactly why we have a range of casualties. And goes back to my original point, since there will be no actual military numbers coming (per the Pakistani government themselves) this will be have to deduced from the combined military and civilian casualties. This is the case of WP:DONTLIKEIT. EkoGraf came on 65 based on a conservative estimate. I think the 44-65 is the number we should put up there. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:38, 28 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)

Concur. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CALC does not mean exercising basic arithmetic to add/subtract cheery-picked figures from two or more different sources. This is classic WP:SYNTH not to mention WP:OR. This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

These are not different source and nothing is cherry-picked. Both figures in the two refs I provided are official Pakistani figures for the numbers of casualties in 2017, with one [27] stating 87 both civilians and soldiers were killed in 2017 and the other [28] stating 52 civilians were killed in 2017. Per WP:CALC we can then conclude 35 of the 87 were soldiers. However, if another official source is also confirming a different figure of 46 civilian dead in 2017 (although I haven't seen the source), then yes we should use it as well and provide a ranged death toll for 2017 for both the 46-52 civilians and 35-41 soldiers, based on Pakistan's official figure that 87 soldiers and civilians had been killed overall in 2017 (a figure which can not be excluded and ignored). So I have no objection to including the figure of 46 dead civilians for 2017 as a lower range and would ask that someone add the source because I haven't been able to find it. EkoGraf (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 12:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read the concerns raised above. The Pakistani government does not intend to release these figures. Moreover, the the numbers are from the same day the same source (senate hearing). This is more of a case of claiming WP:OR even when WP:CALC can be used. Ekograf The number 46 comes from another source (another authority on the Pakistan government) and was released much later on. This now seems to be a case of not liking the results from the references and thus calling it unsourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

TripWire, I would ask that you please stick to WP:GOODFAITH and instead of making accusations against Adamgerber80, MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00 or me here or on the other talk page (Siachen conflict) that you try and engage in a constructive discussion and propose a compromise solution. You may think the figure of 87 dead civilians and soldiers reported by Pakistan is irrelevant but it exists and our obligation is to take it into account. In any case, I support the proposition made by the three above editors to include the lower figure of civilian dead as soon as the source can be provided. EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf, here you go.[29] MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf which accusations? You mean directing someone towards WP's policies?—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. You have been only showing your incompetence until now. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

TripWire Again, instead of accusing each editor who doesn't agree with you of violating WP:SYNTH or WP:OR I would again ask that you please make a proposition if you have one on resolving this content dispute. Adamgerber80, MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00 I have now added the lower-ranged civilian toll (46) based on the source that has been provided. This is apparently something on which everyone can agree on. I have not inserted any secondary toll for the military deaths yet so to give a chance for this discussion to develop a bit more and maybe we find a solution to the problem. EkoGraf (talk) 14:36, 30 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.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of any OR being done here. It just you are not understanding WP:CALC. Have you written your own version of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POV? If yes, don't care to show because it doesn't matter. Capitals00 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Which WP:CALC are you following, BTW? The one at WP doesn't support your stance at all.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 14:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm unable to decide if you're just WP:NOTGETTINGIT it or pretending not to. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I don't really care or have the time to engage in these kinds of un-constructive arguments. TripWire, if you won't engage in a way that we find a solution to the problem then, from this point, I am going to simply observe this discussion while overall I am supportive of the ideas Adamgerber80, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have proposed. You can make your further arguments with them. I will only possibly make a few comments if I see that a constructive discussion is made that could lead to a compromise solution. EkoGraf (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Closure of status or change of title

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)

Second proposal to create a separate article for Surgical strike seems good to me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also agree. Separate article for the strike would be the appropriate course of action. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The article should be forked into 2. One dealing with the strike. other about the list of incidents so far. The title should be made accordingly. EkoGraf Please proceed if you want to seperate. --DBigXray 21:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray Then we are in agreement. I will make the separation and necessary changes tomorrow. EkoGraf (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray Its done, sorry for the delay, lot of work in real life. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2018 (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. --DBigXray 20:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray Sorry, didn't know about the licensing thing. Is it ok now [30][31]? EkoGraf (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

yes  Done--DBigXray 11:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FORK article

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)

Please check the discussions above. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you did not read it or participate in it. That does not mean it did not happen. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am asking where exactly is this 'consensus' for a WP:POVFORK, when it's crystal clear as daylight this article was created in 2016? On the same conflict? And whose title incidentally was decided right here. Not only do we have a duplicate article now without consensus, but also a title which directly violates NPOV and consensus. How should this not invite scrutiny? Mar4d (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The consensus took place between 4 other editors and was over a period of time. You have commented on this page numerous times after that discussion was initiated but for some reason never replied to that discussion. I have also replied to your AFD callig the article a POVFORK. It is unclear if you want a name change or deletion because both of these are different things and I think you are confusing one with another. There is no doubt that we have enough coverage on the event that it can exist by itself as a distinct article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Replacing Pakistani Navy with Pakistani Rangers in the infobox

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)

Unnecessary tagging of the article

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)

66 Pakistani civilians killed in 5 year

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)

Recent ceasefire declaration

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)

Agree with Adamgerber80. Lets wait to see if the declared ceasefire actually stays in place. EkoGraf (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ceasefire seems to be holding for the last month. If this continues for another month we could maybe close the article. For the end date we could put the date of the last incident that resulted in a death (June 16), with a note that although a ceasefire was declared in late May, sporadic clashes continued until mid-June. EkoGraf (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I don't think this is true anymore. India claimed that they had killed 2 Pakistan soldiers in retaliation on 14 August ([34], [35]). Apparently, this was in response to another Indian soldier who was killed during an infiltration bid on 13 August ([36],[37]). Question I have is does the Indian casualty goes here or on Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Historically, in cases of infiltration bids we (read "me") add it to the other article but it seems that sources do claim that he was killed by Pakistan Army fire. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Due to its dubious nature I'm not sure if we should include it here. Also, I am still of the opinion that the article should be closed at this point since this is literally the first incident in two months. Sporadic clashes are of course to be expected, but this one isn't even definitely confirmed to be a part of the "contact line conflict". EkoGraf (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: What do you mean by "contact line conflict" as in the conflict on the Line of Control? If that is the case then yes, sources do claim this happened on the LoC ([38]). Here is another reference from sometime ago which claims that the lull was temporary and might resume after the Pakistani general election ([39]). You might be right, that this is just a one off incident but that is also unclear at this point. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I meant it sounded confused to me from the reports if it happened as part of this conflict (subject of this article) or the other one (India vs Kashmiri Islamic militants), although the Hindustan Times report you just linked seems to be a lot clearer, thanks! But in any case, it still looks to me as an isolated incident and not a return to the constant cross-border fighting that had been taking place for the last two years. And the other source you linked seemed to confirm a general feel the ceasefire is actually holding (for the time being). Ok, lets give it 10 more days and if nothing else happens we close it. At that point it will be almost two and a half months of a ceasefire, with only one incident. Anything that takes place after mid-June 2018 we can put into an "Aftermath" section of the article. If a new eruption of constant hostilities takes place sometime later I guess we will need a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ekograf: I am fine with waiting for a few more days. It does seem that the ceasefire should by and large hold per the DGMO level talks between Indian and Pakitan ([40]). But there have been some one off incidents ([41], [42] [43]). Maybe let's wait till September 1 and then discuss on how to write the aftermath. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: As you wish. EkoGraf (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the move, I hope you like the way I structured the aftermath section. If you got any suggestions let me know. EkoGraf (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ekograf: Thanks for the update. You did a good job. Sorry I was away for the last 2-3 weeks and did not edit Wikipedia. There have been another isolated incident recently, IMO, not enough to warrant a new page or a change in this page ([44]). Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Over burden Claims

@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)

Qasee1230, it doesn't matter if Indian claims are not accepted by Pakistan or vice-versa, we always present both sides of the argument. This is one of the basic rules of writing neutrally and is prominently mentioned in the WP:NPOV page as "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". By removing the mention that the casualties on each side are their own claims, you have effectively endorsed them as being true. —Gazoth (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I had made my point on that topic but it also doesn't matter to me as well as it is past, though.I understood Qas (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)