Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why is Jaish-e-Muhammad listed under Pakistan they were neither.

Jaish-e-Muhammad was listed as ‘neutral’ on this a while back, why has it been changed to say it’s supporting Pakistan? Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Taimoorahmed11, please look for "conflict status" in the archive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

The 4 Indian civilians killed are put under Pakistan's column. As they are Indian nationals they should be moved to the India column

NoMoreOstriches (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No Longer ongoing

Sometimes even after wars end some insurgency continues. The American Civil War ended in 1865 but some confederate loyalists still continued insurgency over the 19th Century, post war insurgency doesnt't mean continuation of the war. Insurgency often continues after armistices and treaties, stuffs that end wars have already been enforced. Nothing has happened relating to this particular issue since August 21, India and Pakistan have fought on variety of issues since 1947, and some issues are over and some continue. The one that begun in 26 February in reality ended with Pakistan handing over the captured pilot. The last major issue relating to "this particular clash" happened in August 21, post August 21 disputes are unrelated and should have their own articles. The 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes is over and the release of the Indian pilot and revocation of special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir just states that it ended with Indian Victory, the final result of the February 26-August 21 conflict. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Pakistani F-16

India claims pakistani f-16 was shot down, but this has been refuted by many analysts, and claim is very dubious recently a new article has surfaced https://thewire.in/security/christine-fair-iaf-balakot-pakistan-f16

Which makes a similar claim no F-16 was shot down I can see in losses section "1 F-16 shot down (india claim)" can the statement be amended to 1 F-16 Shot down (india claims however disputed by international critics)

And can this link be added as a reference ?

Regards

TruthSage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.9.53 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved - no objections (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2019) → 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
• India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–2018) → 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
• India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015) → 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

– Establishes consistency with 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish, 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, and many other articles about border conflicts. Putting the year(s) first per WP:NCEVENTS. BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

change

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nithin^talk 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See also

• Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

to

See also

• Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff
• 1999 Pakistan Naval Air Arm Atlantique shootdown Heisenburgerr (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian MI-17

An Indian MI-17 was shot down on the day of skirmish in friendly fire. This should be included in the article.

I thought it did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not. It Must be included in Casualties and Losses and detail should be included in "Retaliatory airstrikes" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.147.171 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Updating the lead

@Slatersteven: I understand WP:BRD and WP:CON, but I think you must describe what are the problems you found in my version which made you to revert me here. It has been nearly 1.5 years that the lead of the article is still same and now we have enough international neutral sources that we can modify the lead as my written version reflected. --Yoonadue (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Its only a claim, not a fact. We do not (as far as I can tell) put in every claim made by either side in the lede, so why this claim?. Also the lede (read wp:lede) is a summery of the important points in OUR article, not of off wiki sources. In addition there may be issue of the amount of weight we are gvingg to one claim (not just in the lede but also in the body) in a month long conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

IAF presented enough evidence in its briefings and Pakistani contradictory statements regarding number of pilots it captured can't be undermined. I still didn't present it as a fact in my edit. Its a strong claim which is worth mentioning in the lead. -Yoonadue (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And I disagree its a strong claim, at least no stronger than any other claim [[1]] (your source) says that there are counter claims.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What US magazine reported about F-16 counting was never confirmed by the American authorities; so it cannot be regarded as reliable enough to debunk Indian claims. Moreover, as F-16 is an American jet, the US sources can't be considered fully neutral in this context. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and the Indian claim is no stronger than the Pakistani denial, thus this deserve no more of mention in the article than any other unsubstantiated claim. By the way, its you using an American source (and old one by the way, not one published in the last few weeks).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I used the said American source to state that India claimed an aerial kill of F-16. There are 10s of Indian sources which reported this claim but a fellow user asked me to come up with a foreign source; so I had to add this one. Whether the claim is right or wrong should be left on the readers to decide. But a mere mention of the claim should not be objected. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And we do mention it, just not in the lead as it would be wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I would propose the following line in the lead just after the mention of capturing of Indian pilot (it includes narratives of both the sides):

India claimed that before getting captured, he shot down a Pakistan Air Force's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison, but Pakistan denied this.

--Yoonadue (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What I mean was its not the only claim of planes being shot down.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian claim of downing F-16 in main body

I don't see what was wrong with this edit since it wasn't even made on lead and was complying with the points made by Slatersteven that the information can be mentioned on the body and not the lead. I would like to know "NPOV" violation was found given all claims were properly attributed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is right. I thought Slatersteven would be fine with adding the content to body now. But now I have gave up reverting. If there are problems with the content then they can be highlighted here or they could be modified but I don't think blanket reversion was justified. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)03:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As almost all I objected to can also be said about this why would you think that (in fact everything except placement still applies here)?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As to NPOV (which was not the only thing I object to), We say the same thing (in effect) twice There is no need for that and it looks like just pushing India's case. Secondly "the Indian Air Force reiterated that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16" is worded to make it sound like they had shot one down, that violates NPOV. Also the edit did not offer any of the counter claims or criticism of India's claims, that violates NPOV (even when the sources did).Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This sentence: "the Indian Air Force reiterated that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16" was added because its factually correct that Indian Air Force re-emphased it twice that Wing Commander Abhinandan shot down an F-16 before himself getting shot. On 28 February 2019, IAF claimed that he shot an F-16. Then again on 8 April 2019, IAF said along with radar images that before crashing, he shot down an F-16. So, IAF's reiteration about F-16 shooting is a fact and can't be contested. I don't know how addition of something which is factually correct be considered violation of NPOV. If you think that Pakistan's viewpoint is underrepresented, no one has stopped you from adding Pakistan's version in more detail. --Yoonadue (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit did not say they reiterated the CLAIM, that is why that particular line violates NPOV. As to adding Pakistani claims, it is down to those who want to include to create neutral wording. As I said on your talk page, we do not need unsubstantiated claims by either side.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Now I propose the following version of my edits in the main body which seems more NPOV:

The Indian media reported on the same day that a PAF's F-16 was shot down by IAF which fell in the Pakistani territory, but Pakistan denied any loss of its F-16. In its briefing dated 28 February 2019, the IAF claimed to have shot down a PAF's F-16 in the aerial engagement. On 8 April 2020, IAF reiterated by presenting radar images that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison before getting captured by the Pakistani forces. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As this (in effect) does not address any of my concerns, and only alters the wording slightly, No.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In my proposed version, I removed "irrefutable evidence", placed "reiterated" statement with right date as per cited reference and also updated references overall. Can you tell your your concerns line by line or word by word? I am tired of all this now. Why don't you come up with your version so that we can collectively pick better words from your and my version to make constructive edit to the article? --Yoonadue (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And it still implies that at the second statement provided proof it was true. I said you need to make it clear the second statement is also only a claim. I have also made it clear if you need to give equal weight to Pakistani claims (all claims). I have also said that even if you did this, why do we need unsubstantiated claims form either side?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The second statement also implies that its a claim. It doesn't present it as an established fact. As far as Pakistan's version is concerned, I have clearly mentioned that Pakistan denied any loss of its aircraft. I have spent enough time on this topic. Why don't you devote some time and come up with "more" of Pakistani claims that you find necessary? If you too don't have time, then let my lines be added and leave it upon other users to add Pakistani claims in more detail. That would be a better approach. --Yoonadue (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Which part of "why do we need unsubstantiated claims form either side?" implies I see any need to work on this so as to include it? We used to have all this unsubstantiated claims, not of which have subsequently been verified, at the time. Now there is no reason at all to include either sides propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am back here with a new proposed version for the main body. I have trimmed the old version significantly and used more neutral wordings. I hope we gain consensus this time:

On 28 February and 8 April 2019, the IAF claimed that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison before getting captured by the Pakistani forces. But Pakistan denied any loss of its F-16. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not matter how many times you trim it, we do not need unsubstantiated claims from one side.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim?? Do you think that apart from HD video recording, every evidence is unsubstantiated claim? IAF presented whatever proof it could from AMRAAM derbis to radar images which makes their claim strong. Still, you are against even mention of its claim. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because that is what all the non Indian sources say. Does one third party RS say Yes India shot down an f-16?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Armies make all sorts of claims during armed conflict, especially one as long-running as this one. The lead should stick to presenting what independent sources say happened; all the unverified claims and counter-claims, together with their analysis by indpendent sources, belongs in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

But the problem here is that Slatersteven doesn't want even a single mention of Indian claim of F-16 downing even in the main body. --Yoonadue (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No I said I want no mentions of either sides unsubstantiated claims.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven and Vanamonde93. There is no need to mention claims. However, I have noticed more problematic edits creeping in. The skirmishes began on the 26 February 2019, not the 14 February, which was the date of the Pulwama terrorist bombing, and, which while a great tragedy for India, is strictly speaking not a skirmish between India and Pakistan, nor has it been interpreted so by third-party international sources. I will be reverting to the original. Secondly, no peace offer was made nor accepted. A Twitter post is not a peace offer, nor a Twitter response an acceptance. That too will need to go. The skirmishes, like many, petered out. There is no need to define a concluding date citable to a source that say, "concluded on ...", and especially not a result: Inconclusive. I will be removing those as well. I have interpreted 1 March 2019, the date of the return of the Indian pilot, to be the concluding date. The conflict petered out. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven: They aren't unsubstantiated claims. There are enough evidences to refute Pakistan's denial of losing an F-16.

• Pakistan first said that it didn't use the F-16s at all. But when India disproved it by showing AMRAAM derbis, it changed its stance saying it had the right to use any aircraft for its self-defence.
• Initially Pakistan said that it has two Indian pilots in its custody but later changed statement to one pilot. Why so? This indicates that the second pilot actually belonged to the PAF.

If there are any reliability issues, they are on the Pakistani side rather than Indian. In your last reply, you said that words like "reiteration" needs to be removed and IAF's claims should not be given too much space. Now in my latest proposed version, I have removed the "reiterated" word and trimmed the entire content a lot from my previous proposed version. But you still say that it violates NPOV. You want the page to present that an aerial engagement took place and Pakistan clearly won 1-0 and Indian claim of shooting F-16 should not even be mentioned. I find it an utter violation of NPOV. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Or that they were lying about a second plane, and you think Pakistan cannot ID its own pilots? Not do any non Indian source you have provided say they definitely did shoot down an f-16, only that they claim to have done. No independent analysis has shown any loss of an f-16, and just accepting Indians claims and ignoring Pakistan's is a violation of wp:undue and wp:npov We either have all (that is all not just those relating to one incident) or no claims, we should not give one side undue credibility. Enough now, this is getting wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian claim: IAF's Mig-21 shot down F-16; Pakistani claim: No F-16 was shot down. Why do you say that claims of both sides is not being included? Btw, why did you initially revert my edit saying "Not in lead" when at the end of day, you were to oppose any change even to main body? --Yoonadue (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"all not just those relating to one incident", the sources you provide to back your edit tell you there are other claims, why are you not including those?. As to why I did not say also "Not in the lede", because at the time that was the MAIN objection, as I said on your talk page there were multiple issues.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

edit

Want to make some edits that I found suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISL fan (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to tell us what they are.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong usage of source

It says 2 pakistani soldiers killed under causalities and loss but the source mentions 2 civilians. Kindly change46.152.63.26 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"two Pakistani troops killed as clashes along frontier continue".Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven I think you should mention Mi-17 shot down too in the Casualities and Loss 46.152.60.188 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Slatersteven give proof Tayyab Ahmad67 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Modi's Comment

I think it is important to add Modi's remarks of “Today, the lack of Rafale is being felt,” Modi said. “The country is saying in one voice that had we had the Rafale [fighter jets] now, what all could have happened? Putting self-interest and politics before Rafale has seriously hurt the nation.” As it is a tacit admission that IAF did not perform to the standards the government wanted. It also lead to a greater focus on India acquiring Rafael which they have just revived.

I suggest this be added to the aftermath section.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Indian Casulties

Indian losses and casualties should depict the loss of 1 Mil Mi-17, 6 Indian Air Force personnel and 1 civilian because of friendly fire

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/budgam-mi-17-crash-iaf-chief-admits-big-mistake-1606217-2019-10-04

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.154.12 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)