Misplaced Pages

Talk:2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:01, 6 October 2016 editVice regent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,414 edits →Vice regent gaming the edit restrictions← Previous edit Revision as of 15:04, 6 October 2016 edit undoVice regent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,414 edits →Two sectionsNext edit →
Line 107: Line 107:
:::If anything under the "Indian version" is not the official Indian version, then please remove it.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) :::If anything under the "Indian version" is not the official Indian version, then please remove it.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 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.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 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.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 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.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


=== Vice regent gaming the edit restrictions === === Vice regent gaming the edit restrictions ===

Revision as of 15:04, 6 October 2016

WikiProject iconIndia C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPakistan C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. 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.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.
WikiProject iconDeath C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Requested move 1 October 2016

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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, . 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)
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)
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, Misplaced Pages'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)
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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages is not the Indian Army's mouthpiece nor bound to them. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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)
  • Strongly Reject In addition to the disputed PoK terminology, "surgical strike" is being used in scare-quotes by some media outlets, 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 Misplaced Pages regarding this and no where terms like India occupied or Pakistan occupied Kashmir have been used on Misplaced Pages in general sense.  sami  08:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussions

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)

References

References

  1. Annie Gowen; Shaiq Hussain (29 September 2016), "India claims 'surgical strikes' against militants in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir", The Washington Post
  2. ^ Annie Gowen (30 September 2016), "India's 'surgical strike' on Pakistan territory hints at new era for nuclear-armed rivals", The Washington Post
  3. Ankit Panda, Indian Forces Cross Line of Control to Carry Out 'Surgical Strikes': First Takeaways, The Diplomat, 29 September 2016.
  4. India Claims ‘Surgical Strikes’ in Pakistani-Controlled Kashmir, The New York Times, 29 September 2016
  5. Krishnadev Calamur, India's 'Surgical Strikes' in Pakistan-Controlled Kashmir, The Atlantic, 29 September 2016.

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

  1. Umer Ali (18 August 2016), "Pakistan: The Rebirth of Jihad", The Diplomat, retrieved 2 October 2016

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 Misplaced Pages page says $1 billion? Tri400 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2016 (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 , 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)

Misplaced Pages article is POV?

Mar4d How do you claim a full Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories:
Talk:2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes: Difference between revisions Add topic