Talk:2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:29, 15 August 2015 editHuman3015 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,614 edits →top: assessment. .← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:31, 15 August 2015 edit undoFreeatlastChitchat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,942 edits →Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:
	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. ], <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> and ] are hereby invited. ] (]) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		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. ], <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> and ] are hereby invited. ] (]) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|FreeatlastChitchat}} 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. --]]  06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		:{{ping\|FreeatlastChitchat}} 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. --]]  06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Human3015}}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. ] (]) 06:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:31, 15 August 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Jammu and Kashmir Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

(edit conflict)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"."

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 Strike Eagle to reply, who considers a farmer and a civilian, Nasreen Bibi as Pakistani soldiers. I would also invite Anupmehra, Rajkumararslan and OccultZone 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by Guptakings

This Guptakings 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. --Human3015 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. OccultZone, Fai zan and Human3015 are hereby invited. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: 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. --Human3015 06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: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)

Categories:

Revision as of 06:29, 15 August 2015 editHuman3015 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,614 edits →top: assessment. .← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:31, 15 August 2015 edit undoFreeatlastChitchat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,942 edits →Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:
	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. ], <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> and ] are hereby invited. ] (]) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		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. ], <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> and ] are hereby invited. ] (]) 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|FreeatlastChitchat}} 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. --]]  06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		:{{ping\|FreeatlastChitchat}} 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. --]]  06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Human3015}}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. ] (]) 06:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)