Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Adding the following info to the article
Text from Lance Naik Hemraj and Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh:

Lance Naik Hemraj was one of the two Indian soldiers of the Indian Army who were brutally killed by Pakistani troops at the Line of Control (LOC) near Mendhar sector of Jammu and Kashmir on 8 January 2013. He was a resident of village Khairar in Mathura, Uttar pradesh. He was beheaded by Pakistani soldiers and his head was missing from site of incident. He was 32 year old.

Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh was one of the two soldiers (the other being Lance Naik Hemraj) of the Indian Army who were brutally killed by Pakistani troops at the Line of Control (LOC) near Mendhar sector of Jammu and Kashmir on 8 January 2013. He was a resident of village Dadia in Sidhi district, 550 km northeast of Bhopal. He was 28 years old.

I think this is relevant info. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Claim?
in the lead its written Indian officials claim two soldiers were killed and mutilated with one of the men being decapitated. As far as I know the killing of two Indian soldiers is real while the mutilation of the body is a claim. --sarvajna (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right but it remains ambiguous whether the soldiers were actually killed by the pakistani army.Hence the word claim  TheStrike  Σagle   15:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall one of the sources saying there were militants present as well as Pakistani troops. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That includes Hafeez Saeed too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Description of the incident missing
The actual incident has not been described here at all! Of course, the details are fudgy but a clearer and better picture has emerged. A separate section, with describing the incident, with details like: the soldiers being on patrol on the Indian side of the LoC, the commanding officer of the army in-charge, the name of the unit etc are essential, and the claimed sequence of events during the firefight etc. A huge amount of refs are available for all that. Any suggestions? --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it to the article.You are right, I would be trying to add some of it myself too.  TheStrike  Σagle   17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Should this be part of Azad Kashmir project ?
As far as I know Azad Kasmir or PoK whatever you want to call it is not part of Pakistan, so an article of clashes between India and Pak forces be part of Azad Kashmir project?. --sarvajna (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The so called Azad Kashmir is (as of what Indian sources say) illegally occupied by Pak, but still it has nothing to do with this article as the incident took place on Indian land (Pak soldiers violated the ceasefire and came 500 metres within the Indian territory). Also Pak politics project has nothing to do with this topic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is total rubbish. The incident took place on the Line of Control and Indian forces exchanged fire with Pakistani forces who were based across the border in Azad Kashmir. So in all respects, Azad Kashmir is relevant for geographical purposes. I am going to restore if no other valid argument is presented.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you restore it without waiting for an argument? --sarvajna (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you don't have an "argument."  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that you don't know about the incident. Check the sources my friend. In case you are too tired to find them, here is one: . ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And your point is... ?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me explain you. The source says,"Two Indian soldiers died after a firefight erupted in disputed Kashmir on Tuesday as a patrol moving in fog discovered Pakistani troops about 500 metres (yards) inside Indian territory, according to the Indian army." [emphasis added]. I know what you will say: this is claimed by the Indian Army. But I have got an answer to that too: the whole incident is based on the claims made by the Indian Army. It is based on the death on 2 Indian soldiers, and the death took place on Indian soil. Pakistan is just involved in this incident due to the claim made by India that this was a result of Pakistani violation of ceasefire. So what the hell makes this article a part of WP PoK?? (And be prepared to find yourself at WP:AN3 if you tried to fire an edit-war). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, the Indian Army shot dead three Pakistani soldiers and they were based on the Pakistani side of the border. In fact, one Pakistani soldier was killed in an exchange of fire in Pakistani territory by the time the alleged incident above (as according to Pakistan Army sources) took place. Edit war again, and be prepared to find yourself at WP:AN3 too.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In case you need a catalyst to halt your conspiracy theories for a while, here's a link, a fourth Pakistani soldier was killed "at a position called Kundi during firing from the Indian side . I'll give you some time before the original restoration of Azad Kashmir takes place, or we can go the easy route and call an RfC.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is going silly. The first sentence says it all,"The 2013 India-Pakistan border incident was caused after India claimed that Pakistani troops crossed the Line of Control (LoC) on January 3 2013, killed two Indian soldiers and mutilated their bodies." The article is based on the death of two Indian soldiers, and the death of Pakistani soldiers has nothing to do with it. In fact the alleged death of Pak soldiers may not be notable (see Articles for deletion/2011 India–Pakistan border incident). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aah, wrong again. The incident began on January 6, not January 3, and in fact started when "Indian troops had raided a military post in the Haji Pir sector of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, killing a soldier and injuring another." Reference: India and Pakistan in Kashmir border skirmish, article dated January 6. The alleged dead Indian soldiers you talk about came into existence on January 8, not January 3 (two days after Pakistan claimed India violated the LOC); see this article Indian troops shot dead near Kashmir's Line of Control, dated January 8. Amazing to see the repeated flaws in your arguments. Oh and as far as the "notability" of the alleged death of Indian soldiers is concerned, this is a relevant quote which needs to be added into the article shortly: It appears to be Indian propaganda to divert the attention of the world away from the Sunday raid on a Pakistani post by Indian troops in which a Pakistani soldier was killed. I hope we have the chronology cleared now for I am getting rather tired of your lack of knowledge of even the dates of the events.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are getting funny. First, my point was not about the date, but rather the topic of the article. The so called death of Pak soldiers is not notable. The death of the two Indian soldiers has been the topic among discussion in the sources. If you have any doubt, make an article about the Pak soldiers' death, and we will see if it survives AfD. The thing is clear: don't try to change the topic so you can push your POV. And I am not interested any-more to waste my time in having a debate with you. Open a RfC so we can get a conclusion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you going on about? This is a border incident where fire was exchanged and soldiers were killed on both sides. News sources dated January 6 record that Indian troops killed a Pakistani soldier, dig up articles on that date on major newspapers for fucks sake. Read all news sources, they will quote the events as they took place. Here is the official chronology of events, as narrated by The Economist: Growing more serious

 Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC
An editor above thinks that this article should only talk about the deaths of the Indian soldiers whereas the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers who have been killed in this border clash are, in his own words, "not notable." Whereas all major news sources which have been reporting on the topic explain the official chronology of events as having started on January 6 when Pakistan claimed Indian forces violated the Line of Control and killed one Pakistani soldier ([The Economist, BBC etc.) Should the article cover these events, as quoted in all sources and as would be expected in a military conflict article on Wikipedia, or be restricted solely to the events surrounding the alleged deaths of the Indian soldiers as proposed by the editor above? [[User:Mar4d| Mar4d ]] ( talk ) 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar, sorry but your sources are no good. The BBC source does not mention the beheading, which is essentially what this article boils down to, the second is a blog post in the economist, only usable for opinions. This RFC is a waste of time if that is all you have for sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You purposely miss the point; it is the chronology of events that is under discussion here. I don't think I need to add any comments, the sources speak for themselves and the BBC source is quite clearly referring to the (allegedly) beheaded soldiers where it is mentioned that two Indian soldiers were reportedly killed. Nice try, though. As for the Economist, prove that is is inaccurate or otherwise.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar, I do not have to prove anything, you know as well as I that opinion blogs cannot be used for statements of fact. And no, the BBC makes no mention of the killing of the two Indian troopers that I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you are sure as I cannot be bothered with your usual bluster this is what the BBC says "Indian army spokesman Col Jagadish Dahiya told Reuters news agency it had responded to a "ceasefire violation" by Pakistan. He added: "None of our troops crossed the Line of Control. We have no casualties or injuries." Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is obviously an Indian claim and cannot be considered reliable toe be stated as fact, at least not according to neutral point of view guidlines.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have bolded the bit you seem to have missed. Fed up of those proxies yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And why did you remove the Guardian, BBC You have also crossed WP:3RR, just noticed. Self-revert  Mar4d  ( talk ) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FFS, I already told you. No blog posts, the other two do not mention this incident so cannot be used. And no I have not crossed 3RR as reverting socks is an exemption. Feel free to clarify with any admin if you do not believe me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, why is a claim from the Indian army not reliable yet the Pakistani army is? You used the guardian and stated as fact that a Pakistani trooper was killed, but that claim comes from the Pakistani army, and you failed to mention in your edit the rebuttal from India? Hardly NPOV now is it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * there is no "essentially what this boils down to". It is a border incident, period. That involved the deaths ion boh sides as they are part of the ensuing incidents that sarted with the pakisani death first. There would be no brigadier level meetings if the first incident did not escalate. BOTH sides need mention, possibly in seperate sectionsLihaas (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there is, it all kicked off when one of the Indian guys got decapitated. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. that does NO mean it ONLY includes Indian deaths
 * .2. it was no the statr in the first palce.Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? When did this make the news and become notable? When a guy had his head loped off. That is when it began, and in fact I had that sourced in the article till Mar4d removed it, again. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it was the beheading of the Indian soldier which started all this. I have already given an example (Articles for deletion/2011 India–Pakistan border incident). In 2012 only, 120 of such ceasefire violations were done by Pakistan, but we don't have an article for all of them. The death of the Pak soldier is nothing different. Such activities are very common on the LoC, the only difference is that the beheading got a lot of coverage. This does not make the death of the Pak soldiers notable. What it actually deserves is a brief mention in the Background section. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * V, that is actually sourced in the article and Mar is just using OR. the January 8 incident in Mendhar area of Jammu and Kashmir We have a start date reliably sourced for the incident and that is what the article needs to reflect, not some arbitrary date made up by a wikipedia editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lihaas, the incident became notable after the beheading, which was taken up by the Indian government very publicly, and the article is only notable because of that. The Pakistani claim of Indian army raids before that incident are part of the background of the incident and not of the incident as such.--Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 10:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There was independent reporting of the earlier 6 January incident in media such as the BBC already before the 8 January event, so any claim that the 6 January events were not also notable appears bogus. The article must treat all of these together, in the same way the international media do it, e.g. USA Today here on 15 January, which treats all three events together as "a series of tit-for-tat attacks" and "the worst bout of fighting in the region in nearly 10 years", or this Washington Post article from the 10th, which also describes the second incident as immediately related to the first. The present lead sentence with its "The incident began...on 8 January is clearly tendentious and needs to be changed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC article does not connect that incident to the beheading, which is what started this off. We have a source which says it began on the 8th with the beheading. If you are going to go down the road you suggest then it all began in 1947. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any source saying "it began on the 8th". Which source are you referring to? What I do see is at least one source that very explicitly treats all three together (USA Today, 15 Jan). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This one the January 8 incident in Mendhar area of Jammu and Kashmir as does your WAPO source "The news that two Indian soldiers had been killed by their Pakistani counterparts along a disputed border in the Himalayan region of Kashmir sparked full-blown outrage in the national media here this week, after military officials said one of the bodies had been decapitated and the head taken to Pakistan." This all began with the beheading of one guy. It is what has brought it to world attention. BTW USA Today seem to have gotten their dates wrong, perhaps they cannot count. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the best way forward would be to say the clash's came to worldwide attention after India claimed a guy got beheaded? And work from there. What do you think? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What began with the 8th January event was the public outrage in India (which obviously would have taken much less interest in the 6 January incident), and of course media reports in India will focus mostly on that part of the events. That doesn't mean that the series of events as such can logically be cut off at that point. The Washington Post report is explicitly saying that the view of the events that focusses purely on the 8th January incident is "one-sided" and that the "full story" includes the 6th January event, for which the other one seemed to have "come in retaliation". And where do you see the USA Today report getting their dates wrong? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Fut.Perf: Lumping the 3 events together seems to be American POV. The Indian POV, as stated by the Indian Army chief is that the attack in which the beheading took place was independent. He said that, "The attack on January 8 was premeditated, a pre-planned activity. Such an operation requires planning, detailed reconnaissance." Reuters.com article and Times of India article Clearly, the Indians do not think that the attacks can be lumped, as claimed by you. I guess a balanced view needs to be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anir1uph (talk • contribs)
 * And why would we want to favour the Indian view, i.e. the view of one of the embattled parties, over the view of independent international sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that i favor any particular view. I just pointed out that that there are other views too. Also, the French reaction in this case only mentions the mutilation of the Indian soldiers. Are they biased too? The thing that i am saying here is that this incident is notable, unlike hundreds like it, only because of the mutilation of the Indian soldiers and the official and media reaction to it. The claims of tit-for-tat etc are part of the background. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 14:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this still being debated or has everything died down by now? It looks like there have been edits made on the page since the Talk page debates ended so it's unclear. Dreambeaver  (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it is resolved. I more or less agree with the edits by Fut Perf, and the current form of the lead section. I do believe that the mutilation should have been highlighted, as the incident became notable due to that - before that, it was like the other few hundred such incidents that happen at the LoC every year. But, that's fine. Of course, i only speak for myself. :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 19:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfC? - I was invited by the RfC bot to provide an input. But it looks like the issue is resolved. I'll close the RfC, if that is okay with everyone, so the bot stops inviting editors to come here. If the RfC is still active, feel free to restore the RfC tag. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical wording
"The 2013 India-Pakistan border incident was caused after India claimed..."?! In the physical universe in which we live, causation doesn't normally proceed backwards in time. First there was the cause of the incident (whatever that cause was), then there was the incident, then India claimed something about it. Not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should have a background section with [brief] mention of the past Kashmir and Indo-Pak wars, esp. 1999. This particular incident was before claims (which followed with ambassadorial summons). Move this aricle to sub-user page in the interim if it cant be sortedLihaas (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Can you suggest a replacement. Maybe replace caused by started? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 06:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no, the incident didn't "start" "after" India claimed something about it. First was the incident, then came the reactions to it. By the way, to Lihaas, my suggestion was not to expand the causes into a whole new section; I was just objecting to the nonsensical wording of "after" in this sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been changed. Any suggestions? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 08:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Now it's "The 2013 India-Pakistan border incident began when India claimed...". People, have you no sense of basic time relations? Do you know what the words "after" and "begin" mean? Like in, first you have event X, and then you have event Y? When India started claiming things about the incident, the incident obviously had already happened, so it didn't "begin" at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When i meant that it has been changed, i was referring to the version which i had left. I am sure you will agree that it really isnt my fault if it gets changed later. :D --Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 13:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope its better now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

International reaction
Is the French official reaction to the events notable here under "International political reactions"? LoC deaths: France condemns killings or France condemns killing of 2 Indian soldiers along LoC This has found mention in a lot of news sources (Google search result), so must be notable, right? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 06:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrorists
As Terrorists and Paki army are acting together against India, so should not terrorists be added in this article's information box?Ovsek (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous thread. Fai  zan  06:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan Indian dispute
Does any have a personal experience with the Pakistan-Indian border dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilys2231 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330135437/http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=83504 to http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=83504

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Total deaths
What is the total deaths? The lede says "12 Indian soldiers and 1 civilian were killed on Indian side", while the infobox right next to it says "9 soldiers ...". Please be consistent or make clear why the discrepancy. -- KTC (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)