Talk:2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Indian military casualities
Warwar86 i noticed you removed the casualities of Indian army which i posted. Is there a reason why you are doing this. Read the news paper they are from Indian source. All of the incidents happened on different day and reported after a month, you can't that these sources are same. [] happened on 22 july 2014. [] happened on may 19, 2014. Zerefx (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I have semi-protected the article for a week in hopes that cooler heads will prevail not only on the India-Pakistan border but also here at Wikipedia. For the record, it's not "balancing" to add "allegedly" to all claims about one side's behaviour but not the other's. Instead, this article would be benefitted by sources from outside India and Pakistan, such as The Guardian, The New York Times or ABC News. Those are less likely to be biased than Indian or Pakistani sources, which will tend to provide only a one-sided perspective. Huon (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good initiative on your part. These skirmishes and the Kashmir Issue in general are a very convenient way for politicians to shift public attention from more important, internal issues and get people riled up, arguing over the most useless piece of land in the world. So semi-protected is a good idea. Myopia123 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani military casualties
User:Zerefx removed Pakistani military causalities providing reason that "no report of casualities of soldiers from Pakistan side is reported" but I believe India's media reports are not worthless. Pakistan military is used to to hide the truth about its casualties as usual. --Saqib (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Saqib Saqib the person who has locked the article asked to provide links from less baised site likes guardian Uk, ABC news and others. And those sites also haven't reported on any thing like killing of soldiers on both sides. Now you can't say that Pakistani military is hiding or controls guardian uk or abc news channels. And also on Indian news channels the intelligence who is watching the casualities on Pakistan side claimed that they got the information from Pakistani media. But there is no news on Pakistani media. [] Zerefx (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many reputable Indian newspapers identified as reliable sources, reported that as far as Pakistani military personals have been killed. I would like to have others opinion on this matter. --Saqib (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:saqib Okay. But Indian media also reported that only 8 civilians on Indian side and 11 on Pakistani side were killed. Even BSF also said that only civilians have been killed in recent ceasefire violation and not soldier [] so how did it increase that much in a just a day or two. If it was massive violation then other international media would also had taken action like they did when 5 Indian and 4 Pakistani civilians were killed. International media also doesn't state any military personal death from both sides []. Indian media is also all not that correct like times of India reported that in 2013 ceasefire violation there were nine military casualties and six civilian deaths [] .Mean while Pakistani media reported 14 civilian casualities and 10 military personals [] so if we are going with Indian media and that Pakistan military hides casualities from their side then we should change the 2013 Indo Pak skrimishes Zerefx (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Indian claims
There needs to be clear mention of the fact that Indian claims off so called "terrorists" etc killed are no verifiable these claims were not mentioned in other major sources only in Indian media and so it must be made clear India theorizes the number of dead Pakistan itself rejects these claims the article is turning into an Indian newspaper excerpt rather than a neutral article on the topic at hand. Krs1one (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then please get some pakistani sources to support your claims....just accusing that we use Indian sources won't help your cause a bit....the fact is that the pakistani government(you call it as Army) ordered the media of your country to stop publishing news about the issue..thats the reason why you won't find news about your military or civilian deaths.....and about the so called terrorists, that's what the sources say.....and they were killed crossing the border..so yeah, they are confirmed deaths...  ƬheStrike  Σagle   01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW remember that when you say the Indian sources are unverifiable, the same applies to Pakistani sources as well...the Indian media atleast provided images and proof of the civilian deaths while the Pakistani media hasn't.....this proves which is verifiable  ƬheStrike  Σagle   01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Strike Eagle international sources also don't support facts of India media regarding killing of terrorist or any military personal. [] [] [] so only Indian media is reporting those casualities. This will only make the article one sided. Kindly show international source that verify your claims regarding Pakistani media hiding it's casualities. Even UNMOGIP has visited Pakistan and Pakistan has showed it's casualities to them also [] Zerefx (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The figures of Pakistani Rangers killed on 31 December
Well, the Pakistani officials have given the names of the two killed, Naik Riaz Shakir and Lance Naik Muhammad Safdar. In the country only two funeral prayers were carried out. So if there is no neutral source claiming that instead 4 soldiers were killed, the BSF claim that four Pakistani rangers were killed is invalid. Fai zan  18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the BSF claim if no source is given which quotes someone else than BSF for "four Rangers killed". Fai  zan  18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pakistanis better know how many of theirs were killed and in contrary to BSF claims,only two funeral prayers were offered. Fai  zan  19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 funerals were offered doesn't necessarily mean only two of them are killed. We have enough sources to support BSF claim. We are just adding them as Indian claims. No problem with that atall. They are strongly sourced.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   12:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have two neutral sources which confirm that 2 Pakistani and 1 Indian soldier was killed [] [] Zerefx (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which source to prove BSF claim? Any neutral source not quoting BSF officials? One by CNN did verify Pakistani claim but it was removed by someone. Fai  zan  15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Zerefx, all sources other than BSF are giving the death toll as 2. I am going to remove the BSF claim if a neutral source is not given. After All,  We have enough sources to support BSF claim.  Fai  zan  15:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the neutral international sources that Zerefx provided? Both of them clearly mention that the death toll of both India and Pakistan were mentioned by the respective armed forces, rendering them just as effective as the sources I provided earlier. The Indian claim will stay as it is sufficiently sourced.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, until the discussion here yields consensus, this version should stay whatsoever. I am considering third party comments, probably the other two killed were atheists as their funeral prayers were not offered. Fai  zan  16:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. Whether the two soldiers are atheists is none of our concern anyway. We may instead write like 6-8 killed which is more neutral IMO as it mentions both the ends. We have enough sources for both anyway.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, only 6 were killed, as supported by majority of sources. Fai  zan  16:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current version should stay, I am not going to remove the Indian claim till consensus here. Fai  zan  16:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6 killed by Pakistani sources and international sources quoting Pak officials. 8 killed by Indian sources and international sources quoting Indian officials.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? Did I remove Indian claim? The current version should stay. Both claims have already been adequately mentioned in the infobox. Fai  zan  16:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * arey yaar when did I oppose your proposal to let this version stay? I was answering to your statement that 6 was supported by majority of sources which is untrue.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Separate articles for 2014 and 2015
I think we should start new article for 2015 as 2014 article is long enough. Your opinion?? -Nizil (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think length is the criterion for separate articles. We have separate articles for other years.e.g. 2011 and 2013 because those skirmishes took place and ended within that same year. But in this case, the fires are ongoing. Fai  zan  19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by Sumanta
This edit is contrary to the consensus above. Regarding the reference cited, The Hindu in the article says: "five Pakistani Rangers have been killed in the exchange of fire since Thursday", and it links this text to this link, which says only two Rangers were killed. Perhaps The Hindu needs to correct, either they should make it 5 in both articles, or 2 in both articles. Nevertheless, no Pakistani soldier's casualty has been reported in January. If there is not justification given and consensus achieved, the edit ought to be reverted. I suggested the user previously on my talk too, to discuss the figures first. Fai zan  19:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of Pakistan reacions
Can anyone translate this sentence for me? "The Pakistani Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif responded to the Indian counterpart on 'unafforable adventurism', "We don't want to convert border tension between two nuclear neighbours into confrontation".[48][82][83]"

I'm especially confused as so why tyhose sources were cited in particular, seeing as the first is a statement by the international Business Times that Pakistan had violated the ceasefire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.115 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani dead edit war
While edit warring is not the way to go about it, Rajkumararslan is right about the number of dead Pakistani soldiers: The sources for the dead in July and August that Rajkumararslan removed and that OccultZone, Anupmehra and Strike Eagle re-added do not say those dead were soldiers, and in context it seems highly likely they were civilians ("killing one man and wounding two women and a child" - I think we can safely assume the women and the child are civilians; "At least two Pakistanis were killed and three others, including a woman, were injured" - again it seems likely the woman is a civilian; in neither case is a distinction between the obviously-civilians and any soldiers made). Huon (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, giving detailed rationale shortly. Fai  zan  19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious, the sources would never regards a soldier as a "Man/Person" which was killed. In fact, many sources would use the term "Martyr" for the soldiers killed. The facts are facts, some of the people from both sides always want the casualty count of the opponent side forcibly greater. Now, lets discuss the sources one by one, the first source was published on 21 July 2014. It says that "at least one person was killed and four others were injured". Upon searching the archives of the media, I found that the sources published on the same day say that the killed one was a farmer and four others were injured. For example, updated report of DAWN: A farmer was killed and four others, including three women, were injured, Pakistan Herald: Farmer killed by Indian firing in Sialkot, The Zimbabwe Herald: a civilian was killed, The Tribune: Truce violation: Civilian killed in ‘unprovoked Indian firing’, Daily Times: Pakistani civilian dies in Indian border fire. Now, the second source, which says: "two Pakistanis were killed and three others, including a woman, were injured". Upon searching the archives for this date, I found that only one casualty was reported by other sources and it was Nasreen Bibi, a civilian. For example, "A woman died and four villagers were injured, A woman was killed and four other civialians were injured by Indian troops, A woman died and four villagers were injured, A civilian was killed. Now, I expect at least to reply, who considers a farmer and a civilian, Nasreen Bibi as Pakistani soldiers. I would also invite,  and  to comment.  Fai  zan  19:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll make a comment. I made an edit seeing "removal of sourced contents" and I didn't knew I was wrong until my edits were undid. All posted above, a deep analysis of changes, I've had moments after revert of my edit (at least 24hrs before from now). If it was an edit-war from my part, I was supposed to make further edits what I didn't. One wrong edit -I didn't imagine would led me to the accusation of 'edit-warring'. Earlier I wanted to move on, but being pinged twice in here and have to therefore make a comment. What's this discussion about? Why is it being called an "edit-war"? Please do not answer. I don't wish to get involved in here. Thank you! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These particular changes were made by Zerefx at first, who had edited a number of particular statistics without giving a reason. That's why his edits were being removed. He had also evaded with multiple IP addresses. When I reverted for the first time I thought about that again, until I had seen his message on my talk page.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by Guptakings
This user is making unconstructive edits there, requesting other users to stop him. He does not want to discuss anything, and so-far has produced edit-summaries like: "More ingo produced". Reported to ANI. Fai zan  18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Claims
So guys, we have got claims of 7 Indian soldiers and 4 Pakistanis being killed in January 2015. Neither of these figures were verified or supported by neutral sources. So a separate section "Claims" was made to include the claims made by the respective countries. Recently, a user shifted the claims for January to the main box. Reverted him. Faizan (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have tried to discuss it at his talk too. Faizan (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar
I just spent a good half-hour cleaning up some blatant crimes against the English language. For those non-Native Anglo speakers, please ask for help when adding incidents. If you're worried that someone might not help you due to the nature of your post, then maybe you should step back and take a more neutral view of the conflict. I also removed some (more) politically-charged language designed to push a narrative. 65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job all.
This page has been going fairly well over the past few months. A few scuffles over neutrality, but overall the article presents itself as very NPOV.65.209.62.115 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock farms
Many sock farms operate on this article. Recently, a new user, who edits through a mobile like others, made entry. In his first 3 edits, all to this article, he restores all of the disputed text that was inserted by the previous socks. I have reverted that edit and thought explaining it here would be a good idea. Firstly, 13 Indian soldiers have been killed, but Pakistan claims they killed another "four", making the total count "17". I explained in my earlier edit that ISPR first said that "3" civilians were killed but later on retracted that press release by saying that only two were killed, thus the Pakistani civilians murdered are "36". Moreover, only "Pakistan Rangers" is fighting the BSF and Pakistan Army is not involved directly. We have not included reasons for both Pakistanis and Indians killed, whether headshot, or shot in the neck, etc. Regards. Faizan (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this page should be pending changes protected or semi-protected. These days I'm busy on Tourism project, I need to check all news cited in this articles, people interpret news according their views. I generally don't revert these changes because I have not read news, blind reverting may end up in sanctions as it happened with some users recently. If you are not busy elsewhere then you check all news and write according to sources in best possible neutral way. Regards. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   11:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The can of worms called "injuries"
Someone has put in mention of "injuries" into the article. I checked the last two edits from anon IP editors but they are not to blame. I am now removing this because if we start adding "injuries" it will open up a can of worms which will most likely result in a HUGE HUGE amount of edit wars and general bullshit. If any editor wishes to disagree please place your argument here before reverting my edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms
The article uses a very large amount of terms which create uncertainty. Like saying "2 soldiers were killed by ALLEGED firing". This may seem a good idea when we are creating a NPOV article on two contested claims but here there is no required "weight" to add. This article is just a list of people killed. I am pinging a couple of editors who seem to be working here to see if it is all right to remove this kind of ambiguity.  Occult Zone , Fai  zan  and  Human 3015  are hereby invited. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern in this issue. But there is ambiguity in this article because of issues related to "ceasefire violations". There is no question regarding firing but there has been questions regarding who started firing first. Media or authorities of both sides claims that other side has started firing first or other side violated ceasefire. Neutral foreign media also can't say anything on this issue as no one has actually seen who violated ceasefire first and reports of foreign media are also based on primary reports of either India or Pakistan. So there is ambiguity in the article and we can't write anything as sure. Regards. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think using English as second language I have not been able to make myself clear lol. What I wanted to say was that we remove ambiguous terms when they are used in deaths. Like replacing "five indian soldiers were killed from alleged Pakistani gunfire" to "five indian soldiers were killed from pakistani gunfire". When there is a issue of who did what we can let it stay around, for example in the statement that Pakistani forces disabled an Indian drone we can let it say that Pakistani forces "claim to have" captured an Indian drone. My request is only about confirmed kills. I'll wait for some other comments than make a BOLD edit, perhaps it will be better in showing what I had in mind. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can wait for more comments, but don't removed "injured" people from article, they are also equally important. Your only one chage was valid and I restored it after reverting you and I also added injured people according to source. Also don't remove rejection of "sweets" as it is indirectly related to skirmishes. We should write here every ceasefire violation by each party even if no one dies in it. This article is about ceasefire violations and it should be mentioned, we can't deny any incidence to add here just because few people injured in it and no one died in it. Regards. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   06:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted before on the injuries. that means at least one other person agrees with me. Please do not revert me again without seeking consensus. Giving "sweets" or rejecting them doesn't come under the term "skirmish" the last I checked. Were the sweets rejected with a fusillade of gunfire? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You have still not given any valid reason for removing "injuries" from the article? -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reasons have already been explained on your talk page by at least one other editor. I was not able to go into much back history at your TP but the most recent is that you were told the reasons recently. So Please do not ask for reasons again and again. I'll restore your TP to the time when the reasons are visible to you just to make sure. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are yet to provide valid reason for your claim, neither other editor has given any valid reason and he decided to not revert me. We need reasons for not including this. You have violated 3rr rule, I will lastly request you too self revrt yourself or I will report you on edit warring board. And do explain reasons to remove injuries here. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted twice, you have done the same. We should both let this go and wait for another editor to step in. If you want to revert me, feel free to go on a 3revert block. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are yet to provide reasons why we should not include injuries? I still request you to self revert yourself. And discuss at talk.-- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On which basis you are against including injuries? I'm not even biased, I'm adding civilians injured by both Indian and Pakistani forces, its not like that I'm taking any one side. And your reasons that "someone other also removed it" is not valid reason. Do you think that "injuries' are "minor' or "it is not "ceasefire violation"? Why it is not "ceasefire violation" if anyone injures in firing? Give answer of these questions. Moreover, many people lose their limbs, eyes in these attacks, later they don't able to do any job for livelihood because of their disability caused by firing, do you think "injuries" means just "minor abrasions"? Many people who reported as "injured" die after few months in hospital. Don't take injuries as minor thing. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes is not justified. I knew it beforehand thus had explained it in my edit-summary. I am contributing to that article even before you registered. I know this does not entitle me to do unilateral changes but you should try to get to the simple point. These skirmishes are not new, they have caused immense life damage + injuries. We have not included injuries right from the "very beginning". I would give examples of the recent cases, when on August 4, two Pakistanis were killed and according to the reference, six were injured, we did not include "even those injured in the article" ". Latest example, when a woman was "critically injured" on 9 August, still we did not include it till today when she succumbed to the wounds. Regards. Faizan (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, It doesn't matters since when you are contributing to that article, and I see no logic behind ignoring "injured". That article is about skirmishes, not about deaths. We should mention any kind of skirmish whenever it happens. If Pakistan army or Indian army violates ceasefire and they injure some 100 civilians without any death then according to your logic we should not write that skirmish here. We must write all kind of skirmish. It doesn't matters how many people die or injured. The other incidences you mentioned should have been included too. There is no proper rationale behind why we should not include injured people. It is just your personal opinion. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove    21:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I myself added those "injured" but I will not pursue another edit-war that you started there. Cheers. Faizan (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want we can discuss this at talk page of the article. But it is quite clear issue, if either Indian army or Pakistan army violates ceasefire then it should be mentioned in that article. Rationale that "no one got killed in that violation, only some people got injured so no need to mention that violation" is not correct here. This applies to both sides. Article is about skirmishes/ceasefire violations.-- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also not "taking any side", in fact I quoted the above examples of "Pakistanis being injured on a day and still not not being added here till they die in the ICUs". You should not make it a matter of ego. Ceasefire violations or the cross-border firing takes place everyday. "Today a skirmish took place with no one got killed and a few were injured"? Simply not that notable! Faizan (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If Pakistani injured is not added then we can add, is this a reason to not add these things? You should give "valid" reason according to Wikipedia policy, not nationalistic views. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   12:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you like to ping everybody even when you know they are watching that article? What is your definition of a "valid reason"? One that is a proponent of the nationalist views? I gave the examples of Pakistanis to make it clear that it is not a matter of nationality of those injured. Already explained above. Faizan (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are failed to provide any policy based reason behind "why we should not include injuries in article"? Your reason is not acceptable and personal perception of the situation. So your recent edit is subject to get revert. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   16:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Warning me with ownership? You cannot make unilateral changes without consensus. Faizan (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What consensus you are talking about? Are you free to do unilateral changes? Other party was self-reverted himself but you again reverted it. What are your reasons for non-inclusion? Your reasons are "Because I'm not including injuries since starting so you also can't include injuries", "Sometime in past I have not added Pakistani civilians injured so you can't add it now". "XYZ number of people support me" etc etc. Is there any more reason that you have? Really, is there any other acceptable reason for your claims? -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   18:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not making any unilateral change! And please get me straight, I have mentioned repeatedly above that "nationality" has nothing to do with the injured. I did not invite here. If he self-reverted, it does not mean he agrees to your one-sided changes. Faizan (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again instead of specifying reasons you are making non-useful comments. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 August 2015
Rajkumararslan (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

====August====
 * 🇵🇰 – On 4 August, two Pakistani civilians were killed in BSF fire on Pakistani residential areas near Sukhial village along the Working Boundary near Sialkot. The killed included 14 years old Atif and 22 years old Muhammad Adnan.
 * 🇮🇳 – On 4 August, one civilian, Sanjey Kumar was killed by Punjab Rangers fire at 12 BSF outposts in Kanachak and Pargwal sectors of Jammu district.
 * 🇵🇰 – On 7 August, Indian toy bomb killed a child at Hillan Sector, Muzaffarabad.
 * 🇵🇰 – On 9 August, a woman was critically injured by BSF fire on Pakistani residential areas in Jandrot sector along LOC. The 28 years old Fareeda belonged to Kotli,Azad Kashmir and was being treated in the Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, where she died on 11 August.
 * 🇵🇰 – On 14 August, the day of Independence of Pakistan, one woman, Muneera Akhtar, was killed by Indian army firing in Nezapir sector.
 * 🇵🇰 – On 15 August, one civilian, Muhammad Shafi, was killed in cross border firing along LoC in Kotli.


 * 🇮🇳 – On 15 August, the day of Independence of India, 5 Indian civilians were killed in cross border firing along LoC.
 * 🇮🇳 – On 16 August, a woman was killed by Punjab Rangers fire in Poonch district along LOC.
 * 🇵🇰 – On 17 August, a woman was killed by Indian fire in Nakyal sector along LOC.


 * - As you have made an edit after the article got protected, requesting you to answer this edit-request. Above are changes involving the death-count. Below are some updates in the text in the sub-section "August (2015)" Faizan (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You can see in recent edit war one party was involved in removing "number of injured" persons from the article for no reason. You can read above discussion for their reasoning behind it. I request you to restore persons injured in these skirmishes. Other party has not given any valid policy based reason and their comments reflects personal perception of this problem. If you see the version that I was restoring has injured people from both India and Pakistan, it is not even biased version. One party just don't want to write injured person for no reason, they also claims that if in any skirmishes people don't die and only gets injured then we should not write that skirmish here, "people must die" is the pre-condition they have established here. This should be noted as this article is under discretionary sanctions. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   16:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I will take a look shortly at updating the article, and will let you know when I have done so. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the edits requested - please take a look and ensure that everything is as it should be. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sir! Faizan (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sir, the infobox was fine, but the section "August" needs to be recopied from here (Open the edit-box first, then copy). Faizan (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it. There's more information below which I will incorporate shortly, but I wanted to get the first edit out of the way. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2015
Pakistani civilians causalities from 15 to 16 august are 3,so there are 8 civilians killed in the month of August. please edit the civilians causalities numbers 41 from 40. on August 18, one more civilian was killed by indian firing.the total number civilians killed are 42, now. Rajkumararslan (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2015
Add Name of NSA of India Ajit Kumar Doval in the chart list of belligerents

Ravikantc (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From 8 to 11
For about a week, the same IP range is changing the figures of 8 Pakistanis killed on 28 August 2015 to 11 killed. Never uses an edit-summary, latest one. Previous edits:, etc. Please stop and discuss your changes prior to re-changing that without consensus. The updated sources say a total of 11 were killed which included 3 Indians and 8 Pakistanis, whereas you cannot get to the simple point that not all of the 11 killed on that day were Pakistanis. Faizan (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits by EkoGraf
Please don't merge those sections again. This conflict is a bit different than the conflicts in Syria or elsewhere because this is an India-Pakistan match. We simply cannot afford losing it. The media in this region is pretty nationalistic, thus we created separate sections for both "Indian and Pakistani claims". A country's media claims of killing 5 soldiers from the opposite side, but the opposite side rejects these claims. Then what can we do? This created several conflicts in the past when the opposing side quoting their media added +5 soldiers killed in the infobox. Thus these separate sections are required. In the main sections, onky those casualties are taken into account which have been confirmed by the country to which those killed soldiers belong. Here, we need separate headings for civilians too, as killing a soldier in a conflict is different from killing a civilian. Pakistanis claimed to have destroyed an Indian drone, that was too included in the "Pakistani claims". Regards, Faizan (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I repeat what I said in the edit summary - The day-by-day, month-by-month listing of casualties in the infobox is highly redundant and un-encyclopidic. Not to mention it convalutes the infobox unnecessarily. We don't list individual deaths month-by-month in ANY of the other conflict infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia in this manner. Only totals. Which is what I did. Your month-by-month figures still exist but in single-reference form, at the end giving a sourced total. (This is my main issue and I hope we can resolve it) Second, I took into account both sides claims and did not reject one over the other, but the difference between the two is still there, that's why there are a lower and an upper estimate for all of the fatalities. That way, we are in essence including both the Indian and Pakistani claims, and sticking to neutrality as Wikipedia requests from us and presenting both sides POV. As for the drone, you can reinsert it if you want, I don't mind. If you still want day-by-day and month-by-month fatalities to be listed for readers, than the proper course of action is to create an article similar to List of Taliban fatality reports in Pakistan or List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan where a more comprehensive look into the casualties is presented. The infobox is reserved for full totals only. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * PS If you want to separate casualties claimed by India from those claimed by Pakistan I have no objections, we can discuss this on a proper encyclopidic way to do it in the infobox, but not again writing month-by-month fatalities, unless its in single-reference form like I presented. EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made a compromise edit, I added the drone back and separated Indian from Pakistani claims. Hope that will be sufficient. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , well, it looks OK now. Good Job. I never disputed the monthly counts and I have no problem with their removal. I noted that the unconfirmed media "claims" should not be presented as facts. Cheers. Faizan (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Needs to be verified Adding "POV"
Most of the recent sources are added by one individual Mar4d and sources refer to local news channels/media outlets whose credibility is questionable owing to bias opinions. --Dude7190 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * yes your right. I'm not to much experienced user so I can't understand what to do. But understand users try to push biases into the article. pls check the page & it's recent edits. Sparta cus!  t@lk 05:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of article
I believe that this article should not include the 29 September 2016 event as it is unrelated with the rest of the article. Calling it "2014–Present" is a distortion of the events.

On 13 February 2016‎, User:Baking Soda moved this article from 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes to India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) citing "to reflect present, incident happened today". During my inspection of the article on 21 September 2016‎, I found no evidence of any current India-Pakistan conflicts that are related to the continuous skirmishes that lasted every month from 6 July 2014 to 2 November 2015 as per the article. Thus the title was changed to reflect the article.

On 29 September 2016‎, User: Mar4d moved it back stating that "skirmishes are still continuing". Can Mar4d prove that the 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation of 29 September 2016 is at all related to the continuous skirmishes that lasted every month from 6 July 2014 to 2 November 2015? Filpro (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2016 (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)