Jump to content

Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alibaloshi12 (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 28 February 2019 (Removing my edit to re-add it again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Equation

It's an equation in the end, that will conclude who actually won...

As for now Pakistan is delivering the casualties to India, and will continue to do so until the standoff is over...

Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)\~[reply]

wrong date

at the bottom under military events it says: On 28 February, Pakistan decided to release the captured Wing Commander on 29 February as a "gesture of peace". There isn't a 29 february this year i think it means to say 1 march, can somby edits this i dont have the ability to do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.61.4 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties Balakot

India allegedly claims over 300+ casualties at Balakot; Pakistan denies any casualties... but let us assume that there even were casualties, the media can prove that it was a deliberate "blind attack" which amounts to genocide and a "war crime" by the Indians upon the people of Pakistan...

But right now the Pakistani are retaliating with excessive force against India because the violation of Pakistan's air and space boundaries...

Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

I humbly suggest that people who use the word genocide...should look up the definition first. An attack across the border -- is not a genocide. A retaliation for a terrorist attack -- is not a genocide. A genocide would be an attempted elimination of a substantial -- i.e. over 90 percent --- segment of an ethnic group or population or national population. Eliminating a terrorist camp or terrorist organization is not a genocide. In the current world climate -- it is not a war crime, either, and such language should not find its way into the article..

Question: The Pakistani govt has denied that any terrorist camp was destroyed. Has any source indicated whether the Pakistani govt. has been asked what measures it has taken to eliminate the terrorist group inside Pakistan? Surely if such a camp did exist...and Indian jets failed to destroy it...then the Pakistani military would be busy doing so itself, no? Both sides would agree such a camp should be destroyed, no?

Chesspride 172.164.60.87 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Drone?

The conflict has just began, no Pakistani drone has fallen in India... it is the Indian side that is facing attacks by Pakistan right now... Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F-16

Absolutely no F-16 has been shot down, the weaponry utilized by the Pakistani are far more advanced and deadly, India is in a very difficult position with Pakistan retaliation looming every second... Fjgdh5 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

This should be the headline because history is being made... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (Article has just been started, events are progressing in hours not days, article is still being updated) --Pragmocialist (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a page on this. The page on the Balakot strike doesn't go far enough to take into account the magnitude of events since. At the very least the Balakot page should be expanded into a general discussion of the standoff. Cjs2111 (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the subject will cover all the events chronologically inclusively and extensively. Also Balakot page has to provide data of only the event in concern exclusively. Rest is your discretion respected Admins.Pragmocialist (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmocialist you copied content blatantly, did you give the attribution that is required by the Wikipedia policy ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The escalation is clearly notable. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --103.116.145.18 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it lists a series of related conflicts with no other existing overall page within them. Fixman (talk!) 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (because its parent article for many small incidents which are currently happening, so i dont think it should be deleted) --168.211.69.212 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protect this article?

I think this article should be moved to the protected class or whatever it's called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrisk (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crossed the line of control"

In multiple places the article says that Indian jets crossed the "Line of Control" during the 2019 Balakot airstrike. However, Balakot is not in Kashmir and India does not dispute that it belongs to Pakistan, thus Indian jets would've also had to cross the International Border.Bless sins (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JeM chief Masood Azhar denies any knowledge of Pulwama attack

JeM chief Masood Azhar denies any knowledge of Pulwama attack[1][2]

Some contrary sources from mainstream media. Am not able to find other sources reporting that Masood Azhar denies knowledge of the Pulwama attack. The sources you have cited also describe the audio recording as unverified. [3][4] Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/jem-chief-masood-azhar-denies-any-knowledge-of-pulwama-attack-in-latest-audio-message/
  2. ^ https://www.news18.com/news/india/masood-azhar-absolves-pakistan-of-pulwama-blame-says-attack-was-carried-by-a-kashmiri-2044275.html
  3. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pulwama-terror-attack-kashmir-jaish-e-mohammad-adil-ahmad-dar-1456169-2019-02-14. As 44 CRPF jawans died in a major terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district on Thursday, banned terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility and identified suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar as the one who carried out the attack ... A Jaish-e-Mohammed spokesperson Muhammad Hassan said in a statement, "Dozens of forces' vehicles were destroyed in the attack." {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47249982. Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a Pakistan-based group, has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing on 14 February in Indian-administered Kashmir. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Should the Mi-17 crash be added to the article?

A Mi-17 helicopter crash occured in Kashmir during the standoff, not directly related to the standoff but to avoid further editing clashes I feel like a conversation is needed. UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's worth mentioning, as it might not have been where it was at the time was it not for the conflict. Cepiolot (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mi-17 helicopter crash was independent of the standoff. I agree with UniqueUsername nr1453. Viratkohli2011 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with UniqueUsername nr1453 and Viratkohli2011. There are no sources that the crash, which was accidental, was linked to the India-Pakistan events. Speculating that it might not have been there if not for the conflict is unsourced POV Original Research per Wikipedia's policy. We could only include it if sources directly linked it to the India-Pakistan events. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section removed, as it is not relevant to the standoff between the two countries. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have removed the same now. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Changing Title

Change Title from 2019 "India–Pakistan standoff" to "2019 India–Pakistan Conflict", as the number of casualties of almost 500 and military jets shot down and by the military actions taken, it is more than a standoff. Standoffs generally involve small clashes, but in this case there have been total ariel attacks. Standoffs are small scale like the 2017 China–India border standoff which had 0 casualties. This incident has already surpassed the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by impact, casualties and duration. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is no reliable source I have seen which states an unchallenged total of casualties. Your assertion that the Sino-Indian confrontation in 2017 produced no casualties is false, there were an indeterminate number of both Chinese and Indian soldier which were wounded due to enemy action in melee combat during an incident between both sides militaries on 15 August 2017. Furthermore, the Russo-Georgian War article was named such as the majority of reliable sources call it by that name, in addition to the fact that it was a full scale conventional war between both sides (Georgia even declared a state of war to exist, making it a declared war as well). Currently, there is no generally utilized term for the ongoing skirmishing between india and Pakistan. Given the airstrikes, it definitely has escalated beyond the ordinary low intensity skirmishing that frequents the Line of Control, but it certainly is not a full blown conventional war as of yet.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of military events and non-military events

Military and non-military events should be separated. For example, the suspension of railway traffic between India and Pakistan and the killing of Pakistani prisoner in India should not be in the same section as the military confrontation.Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current event template

I have removed the current event template, since it has already been 30 hours since the strikes finished. nothing is changing rapidly, the reports are accurate now, official statements have also come long back--DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@DBigXray: Hi, there is still a captured Indian pilot, whose status is actively being updated. Air routes, Stock markets are still being affected by this event. Untill both countries declare peace, we can't really consider this event to be over. Its more than just the airstrikes, there are events happening after, Daiyusha (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daiyusha The captured pilot may not be released for several weeks/months depending upon the diplomatic progress. Stocks are stable. Both countries are already at reasonable peace since "major" military events are not being conducted. The border firings have been going on for several years and will continue like that. Full peace will never come until Kashmir is solved. Please read the wordings of the Template:Current event and you will find that none of them are applicable. Please explain which line of the template is applicable here. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff

Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff

SOURCE : https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1100705953056403456

And please take a look at https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/31091/Statement_by_Foreign_Secretary_on_26_February_2019_on_the_Strike_on_JeM_training_camp_at_Balakot

More release can be found at https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?51/Press_Releases

Indian government's official press releases never claimed that it had killed 350 militants.

And the khaleejtimes.com from where it's cited that India claimed it had killed 350 militants it's printed that sources(no details about who is/are the source/sources) said and Not that India said or Ministry of External Affairs of India declared that.

If you do agree with me then please remove the following from the article 

India claimed it had killed 350 militants, a claim which has been disputed by the local residents of the targeted area.

I do believe nothing else other than Ministry of External Affairs of India's press releases should be added to Indian claims in this article same should be done to Pakistan's claims.

Regards,

Jasonx5 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Primary sources do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a state organ. Abductive (reasoning) 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shabby argument.
    We are not a state organ but we do neither take a hyper-nationalist media (with little reputation for fact checking in far dismal scenarios) as the Shankaracharya of Indian Military Warfare. India does not equate Indian media in these areas.
    These figures of 300/350/650/whatever shall be mentioned but never as Indian claims esp. in infobox et al. It's highly important to mention that it is the Indian media who projects these figures. ∯WBGconverse 16:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckage of PAF F16 called out as second IAF Plane

Hi User:Wiki.0hlic Please take a look at this pic in the Pakistani Newspaper Dawn Article. Pakistani media had been calling this pic as the wreckage of the Second IAF plane, while reports in India from IAF sources have confirmed that this is the F16 plane that was shot down by IAF planes.

@DBigXray: As per my knowledge, Pakistan has never claimed that the wreckage of the second Indian aircraft fell in its territory.[1][2] Neither has it said that it used F-16s in the air battle.[3][4] Further, the Dawn article you link to captions the image as "wreckage of an Indian aircraft", and doesn't claim for it to be related to the second jet in any way. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan shoots down two Indian fighter jets: Military". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  2. ^ "2 Indian aircraft violating Pakistani airspace shot down; pilot arrested". DAWN.COM. 2019-02-27. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  3. ^ "Pakistan says no F-16 aircraft used, dismisses report of their fighter jet crashing". www.businesstoday.in. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  4. ^ "Did not want to retaliate at the cost of regional peace: DG ISPR". The Express Tribune. 2019-02-27. Retrieved 2019-02-28.

Pak media showing fake image of mig-21. The picture they showing was 2016 crash of mig21 in kolkata india media proof it by plane number.what a laugh? Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Wiki.0hlic I hope you can now appreciate the clarification of the conflicting reports. It is clear that 2 planes came down. PAF says both were IAF jets. IAF says one was IAF Mig21 and the other was PAF F16. This has to be included accordingly into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:- There is considerable ambiguity regarding the second crashed jet. Wait for an independent source to confirm the claims of either India or Pak. Meanwhile, we can use the statements of both sides until then; which is how things currently are in the article. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wiki.0hlic if you are suggesting to wait for other sources, shouldn't we also remove PAF'S claim of 2 Indian jets that is in contradiction to IAF claims. Its a two way street. Either both claims need a mention or none. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: - I am suggesting to keep the article as is. Claims of both sides need to be mentioned, until proven wrong by independent sources. If you read the section pertaining to the jets being shot down, you can clearly see that both PoVs are mentioned - so its already a "two way street". - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - NDTV source is speculative. Please refrain from adding it to the article unless confirmed by neutral/independent sources. The same Northern Light infantrymen can be seen guarding the Mig-21 crash site, in the same terrain on this[1] BBC source.

References

  1. ^ "Jet downing raises India-Pakistan tension". 2019-02-27. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
@DBigXray: In a recent press briefing by Indian military officers, they claimed that that Mig-21 Bison shot down an F-16 of PAF ([1]). They also presented the cover of AMRAAM missile as a proof of F-16 jets involved in the PAF's strike ([2] [3]).
@DBigXray:, please update the Indian claims by using the official sources listed by Sarvatra above. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

standoff

Maybe I'm unclear, but how is active hostilities, with kinetic devices flying across a Line of Control, a "standoff"? Isn't there a better word? Abductive (reasoning) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: - I concur. However, I am stumped for a better word myself. Maybe 'conflict'? - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Skirmish"? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IAF PILOT RELEASED BY PAKISTAN

Indian airforce pilot who was captured alive by Pakistan Air Force and Pakistan army will be released as a peace gesture from Pakistan prime minister Imran khan. Suhaibwiki (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Change the Indian claimed Pakistani losses from "1 fighter jet and 1 UAV shot down" to "1 F-12 and 1 UAV shot down" to be more specific
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-pakistan-tensions-live/liveblog/68195422.cms
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/indian-navy-army-air-force-joint-press-briefing-live-updates-tri-services-to-begin-briefing-at-5-pm/articleshow/68201513.cms
UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Response section reduction

The International Response section was reduced from the specific reactions of many nations to a sentence saying that some countries have reacted. Another user restored this section and it was deleted again. Conflicting viewpoints deserve discussion not unilateral decision. I would like to see people vote on this. For having the individual reactions of different nations, as is the norm, I am in support. Cepiolot (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the restoration of individual reactions as well. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support, some major countries have made statements that could be seen as non-neutral, and that should be showcased (as accurate to their statement as possible obviously) - UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this and please note that the statement by United States must be there in the article as they didn't just only called for restraint but they also asked Pakistan to take further action against terrorist groups present in the country. Jasonx5 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera Report Admits no JEM Camp found at Indian "Strike" Site and No signs of any Casualties

A recent article published by Al Jazeera here : "https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/indian-air-raid-site-casualties-mysterious-madrassa-190227183058957.html" admit that the indian 'strike' resulted in no loss of life, thereby supporting Pakistan's claims and denying all of Indian claims. As an internationally reputable newpaper with reliable sources, I request for this citation to be added and the losses on the Pakistani Side be mentioned as "0" with this citation as a Neutral Claim to further strengthen the reliability and integrity of this article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattha94 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait, until the recency of this incident terminates and we thus have a far solid sketch of the ground-realities, from neutral observers (of whom, there exists ample many). FWIW, the part. madrassa (and it's vicinity) has been made inaccessible to the locals as well as reporters for non-asserted causes. ∯WBGconverse 16:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth adding reports from neutral observers both to this article and 2019 Balakot airstrike. But both Indian and Pakistani claims of casualties must be mentioned in both the lead and the infobox.Bless sins (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can we have an article on Abhinandan Varthaman on Wikipedia

Looking into the crystal ball, results are largely positive DBigXrayᗙ

Hello,

I was just wondering that can we have a stand alone article on Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. He is in the News and I do think an article on him will most probably pass Wikipedia:Notability.

Some news article that are reliable and independent:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47397418

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/437612-who-is-wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47399126

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/480387-Who-is-Wing-Commander-Abhinandan-Varthaman

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman-here-all-you-need-know-about-iaf-pilot-pakistan-custody/story/323152.html

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/iaf-pilot-in-pakistani-custody-will-be-governed-under-geneva-convention-119022701005_1.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman-chennai-iaf-1467149-2019-02-28 Jasonx5 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonx5, see WP:BLP1E. If I am allowed to gaze at my crystal-ball, I'm pretty sure that GOI's going to award him some prestigious war-medal, soon enough and thus merit his inclusion over WP, eventually :-) ∯WBGconverse 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Winged Blades of Godric's ball. His case will also be cited in military history so people can be expected to look for his BIO. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Winged Blades of Godric and User:DBigXray actually there is already an article on him. SEE Abhinandan Varthaman and please add internal links to his article wherever his name is mentioned. Jasonx5 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps editors should wait and see if the notability endures beyond this one incident.Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes&oldid=885531230"