Talk:2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 8 March 2024 (Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 23:43, 8 March 2024 by Dreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs) (Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal 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.

Pakistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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 / Indian / South Asia / Post-Cold War C‑class

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 been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

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.

Claims

@Gazoth: Hey, I think we don't need these claims for anyone, what if they had claimed that they have killed more than 400+ soldiers, it wouldn't be that good to add on any side. The both sides have claimed and accepted their own casualties which is i guess the neutral and acceptable according to the war casualties rule. We don't have any claim for other side in any other pages like in (2014-2015), (2001-2002), (2011) and (2013) The claims are also not going to be added in (2019). Also this 138 soldiers killed in 2017 from (economic times) sounds very dubious as it literally contradicts itself as it stated d in source, "Asked about the fatalities on the Pakistani side, the Army refused to comment" isn't the contradiction? There is no mention of which intelligence tell them. I hope you understand. @Fowler&fowler: could you help there, about the claims? Xdxo2169 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Xdxo2169, mentioning claims of both sides when they differ is standard practice to maintain NPOV. If you have issues with individual claims, take it up separately. —Gazoth (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth:No, i don't have an issue with any individual claims, what i am saying is we really don't need claims for rivals when they have literally stated their own casualties. Besides the fact of economic times i don't even believe in Pakistan's claim about Indian casualties. We could just let alone the number of of casualties what Pakistani and Indian sources has stated for their own country. About NPOV we did not do the same thing with 2001-2002,2011,2013,2014-2015 and 2019 standoffs. My point is to remove the claims and just leave what their own sources have claimed about their own casualties. Xdxo2169 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Xdxo2169, differing claims about own losses are common in wars/conflicts. The general consensus is to handle the neutrality issue by presenting both claims. If a side mentions their own losses, it doesn't mean that it's the truth. What you believe or don't is quite immaterial here. Regarding the other pages that you mentioned, another user who had a similar issue with this page removed the claim in one of the other pages too. I have restored the claim in that page. Nevertheless, you are making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument and avoiding a policy-based discussion, which is quite unconvincing. —Gazoth (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

GazothCould we find another source which had said the same because it's literally only one source about 138 Pakistan's soldiers killed which is quite dubious, isn't? Xdxo2169 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Xdxo2169, again, an issue with one claim is not a valid reason to remove all claims from the other side. The Economic Times is a reliable source and this report is from Press Trust of India, a widely syndicated Indian news agency. It is quite sufficient for a claim that is explicitly labelled as Indian. Only fringe theories requires multiple sources and a statement of casualties is definitely not a fringe theory. —Gazoth (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2019) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories: