Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 28 April 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Error: The code letter IP for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Page views of this article over the last 90 days: Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

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 , 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 .
• He redid the edit again , 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 and the current version 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:

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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)

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 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 05:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and you don't have a source that "point blank" mentions 43 either. —MBL 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, so both these sources: 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 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 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. 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 08:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning The latest numbers point to 23 in 2018(). 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. MBlaze Lightning 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 (). 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 Misplaced Pages 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. MBlaze Lightning 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 17:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• High-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles