Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive6

30 October 2020
I'm wondering what F&F has in mind that he is rendering this as "garbage" and demanding third party sources here (doesn't fit the context at all). This essentially is about a recent row emerged from statement of a notable politician which I considered to be significant enough for a mention. Since it is a verifiable news, providing even a non Indian and non Pakistani sources is neither difficult nor necessary. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * its one (unsubstantiated) comment form one politician, undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The media coverage of the ruckus is far from being undue. Once again, as it's a news for essentially a "claim", it has to be added in this context as a "claim". Claim and not substantiation has to do here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That 'one politician' meets WP:DUE since he is a prominent politician and his statements resulted in more discussion in Pakistan. Though his view should be attributed but to say that 'only third party international' sources should be accepted, would be nonsensical since we are attributing the undisputed view of the Pakistani politician. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, which source supports the text "allegedly after military threats from India"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Translation and interpretation of text itself does. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:or, and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the statement of Sadiq, he says there were military threats. I'm not able to understand which OR you are able to find here. I further did not dug up this topic for no reason. Supplementing older news. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This says "that there would be an escalation in the Indian offensive if the pilot was harmed." and "the Indian Air Force pilot captured by Pakistan was harmed" as well, as "From the moment Islamabad acknowledged it had the pilot, it is understood to have told everybody that it did not want to keep him". Moreover this makes no mention of Sadiq and only attributes the claim that the threat of missile attacks prompted the release, no mention of any Pakistani source.
 * So what did Sadiq say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The second source I had put was to indicate older news that Varthaman's release wasn't unlinked to a missile threat and potentially military conflict. The sources which were removed from article just included Sadiq's statement that India was threatening an attack if pilot isn't released if you opened and read those sources. Interpreting "will attack" or missile threat as military threat is more of a translation, a bit more appropriate to write prose than OR. It wasn't WP:UNDUE earlier either, this part was brought here now as it has become a row in media too. In any case, we all here seem to be clear that content removed wasn't undue. There are no grounds for exclusion of event in sight even if this discussion stretches. I'm just trying to get what point you are making here now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is undue as it is one (opposition) MP's opinion. It has not be verified at all.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is like making a mountain out of a molehill. The statement in question wasn't from a person of authority, but from an opposition politician, and part of the usual ruckus of internal politics; if anything, it doesn't amount to much more than an attempt to extract political mileage at the expense of the government, something exhaustingly common and mundane in South Asian politics. Also, many of the Indian sources seem to have misreported Sadiq's comments by attributing the allegedly "trembling in fear" remark to the army chief, even though Sadiq clarified he was attacking the Foreign Minister. This is an example of untrustworthy, unreliable and unencyclopedic reporting. Just as the article doesn't include the Indian Congress asking for proof of the strikes from the Indian Air Force, the same principle applies here concerning third-party sources. Btw, why isn't pinged?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Undue is essentially for coverage of a non-notable/non-crucial event. At least WP:UNDUE isn't something applicable here, nor for news coverage and nor for the person. It isn't verifiable entirely, is rendered "allegedly". It isn't being added as a verifiable event but suspected. Given the set of news over there, it can't be rejected at all. Why isn't F&F pinged. He was. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just noticed. Btw, WP:UNDUE says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The proof lies in the pudding.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As told before, this essentially isn't being included as the widespread concensus. This is a notable row pertaining to the topic. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we going to include what every opposition-party Tom and Jerry said then, especially a "row" stemming from substandard TRP news reporting? Surely sensationalism has no place on an encyclopedia.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As told before, we are not going to add this as a verifiable news. It is a covered part of allegation being added in that way. Have already elaborated that row didn't stem for recent event but older news of potential war over Abhinandan. Arguments of "TRP" or "sensationalism" have nothing to do here as we are neither writing puffery nor attributing true or false to any statement. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally I disagree with this change and I have reverted it since there is no consensus to include it. This is an unsubstantiated fringe opinion (which seems to be part of a political blame game) and I don't think it should be included. We include information giving due weight to their appearance in the media and this one doesn't satisfy it in my opinion. Additionally, the placement of the information itself was problematic. Notable allegations can be included but they are mentioned separately and it is made clear that it is a fringe viewpoint. In this case it is included as if it was the majority opinion.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Edit: I just stumbled up on this Ayaz Sadiq accuses Indian media of ‘misquoting’ him on Abhinandan release. Seems to be just another run of the mill sensationalist news scoop.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Sadiq's statement was not quoted really different from it and has received backlash for a reason. Anyway, thanks for descriptive statement. I now agree on rest of part that comments from oppositional leaders can be omitted for now. It should not go beyond attribution. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the basic guideline for inclusion remains WP:DUE and in my opinion this statement by the Pakistani politician doesn't satisfy it. It's a minor controversy. Regarding the airstrike, there have also been several opinions/statements from Indian opposition leaders as well, but none of them have been included here as they are not significant enough per WP:DUE.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * * It may not be notable enough for inclusion in lead but not insignificant enough for a mention in section because of coverage. Since it's not supported by peer reviewed articles, it should strictly be attributed to the politician who gave this statement. I've started to agree to exclude it although for quality of article, not for UNDUE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
I would like to request addition of the foreign minister of india at the time, sushma swaraj's statement "No Pak soldier or citizen died during balakot strike " after the 350 killed claim.

Thanks Truthwins018 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

India Shot F-16
It is to be noted that us denied that india shot F-16 i will not say to remove the indian claim but rather write in bracket(Us denied) https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1RH0IM Tayyab Ahmad67 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not an official announcement by the US, sop we need to be careful how we word it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As per Official Reports, Only Mig-21 Bison was shot down in the aerial dogfight. There is no official or verified information on the F-16 or Su-30 MKI. It is Indian point of view that PAF F-16 was shot down which has been denied by many international institutes. It is considered as a counter argument on Su-30 MKI (call sign avenger 11 and 12) was allegedly shot down by F-16. Su-30 MKI formation was scrambled from Punjab region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowiunderstandit (talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Caused Deaths"
This isn't really concise. Can we change "caused the deaths of a large number of terrorists" to "killed many terrorists"? Plutonical (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a direct quote.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2021
Can someone convert the losses from the airspace closure (mentioned here) from "crore" Indian Rupees to US$? No one outside of India understands ₹ crores. e.g. "Air India suffered loss of ₹491 Crore" > "Air India suffered loss of US$66,014,263" Cipher21   (talk)  15:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:MOS:MONEY seems to indicate that crore are appropriate as this is an article about (two) specific countries. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * But, this is not an India-specific article. Pakistanis do not use Indian rupees as their currency either. It's also inconsistent to have USD for one country and INR for another. Cipher21   (talk)  04:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * THis does seem a valid point, as have an inconsistent, Pakistani loses are in dollars and Indian in Rupees.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Add the Pakistani claim of shooting down the SU-30MKI to Indian losses
The Pakistani claim of shooting down the IAF SU-30mki is missing kindly add it to indian losses with (Pakistani claim) remark Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We either mention one side's claims, or we only include confirmed kills. As to sources I see three sources not one, and

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/02/27/counter-attack-by-iaf-sukhoi-jets-derailed-pakistani-strike-ex-pilot-explains.html

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/mar/05/we-didnt-lose-any-su-30-jet-pakistans-claims-false-defence-ministry-1947222.html

https://www.news18.com/news/india/sukhoi-fighter-jet-shot-down-by-pakistan-makes-appearance-at-indian-air-force-day-flypast-2337989.html

There are more, mostly India denying the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have chosen to remove all unconfirmed claims, per wp:npov, we treat both sides equally. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)