Misplaced Pages

Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yoonadue (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 27 June 2020 (→Indian claim of downing F-16 in main body: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:18, 27 June 2020 by Yoonadue (talk | contribs) (→Indian claim of downing F-16 in main body: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7.5 days 
In the newsA news item involving 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 February 2019.
[REDACTED]
Misplaced Pages
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.

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.
WikiProject iconIndia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPakistan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Pakistani F-16

India claims pakistani f-16 was shot down, but this has been refuted by many analysts, and claim is very dubious recently a new article has surfaced https://thewire.in/security/christine-fair-iaf-balakot-pakistan-f16

Which makes a similar claim no F-16 was shot down I can see in losses section "1 F-16 shot down (india claim)" can the statement be amended to 1 F-16 Shot down (india claims however disputed by international critics)

And can this link be added as a reference ?

Regards

TruthSage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.9.53 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved - no objections (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


– Establishes consistency with 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish, 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, and many other articles about border conflicts. Putting the year(s) first per WP:NCEVENTS. BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change

 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. Nithin 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See also

to


See also

Indian MI-17

An Indian MI-17 was shot down on the day of skirmish in friendly fire. This should be included in the article.

I thought it did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not. It Must be included in Casualties and Losses and detail should be included in "Retaliatory airstrikes" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.147.171 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong usage of source

It says 2 pakistani soldiers killed under causalities and loss but the source mentions 2 civilians. Kindly change46.152.63.26 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"two Pakistani troops killed as clashes along frontier continue".Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven I think you should mention Mi-17 shot down too in the Casualities and Loss 46.152.60.188 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. The Hindu. "How did an Indian Air Force Mi-17 helicopter get shot down by the IAF?".
  2. India Toady. "Budgam Mi-17 crash: IAF chief admits big mistake, says our own missile hit chopper".
  3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/shooting-down-chopper-on-feb-27-was-big-mistake-says-iaf-chief/articleshow/71437387.cms?from=mdr. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/budgam-mi-17-crash-iaf-chief-admits-big-mistake-1606217-2019-10-04. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Updating the lead

@Slatersteven: I understand WP:BRD and WP:CON, but I think you must describe what are the problems you found in my version which made you to revert me here. It has been nearly 1.5 years that the lead of the article is still same and now we have enough international neutral sources that we can modify the lead as my written version reflected. --Yoonadue (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Its only a claim, not a fact. We do not (as far as I can tell) put in every claim made by either side in the lede, so why this claim?. Also the lede (read wp:lede) is a summery of the important points in OUR article, not of off wiki sources. In addition there may be issue of the amount of weight we are gvingg to one claim (not just in the lede but also in the body) in a month long conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
IAF presented enough evidence in its briefings and Pakistani contradictory statements regarding number of pilots it captured can't be undermined. I still didn't present it as a fact in my edit. Its a strong claim which is worth mentioning in the lead. -Yoonadue (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
And I disagree its a strong claim, at least no stronger than any other claim ] (your source) says that there are counter claims.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What US magazine reported about F-16 counting was never confirmed by the American authorities; so it cannot be regarded as reliable enough to debunk Indian claims. Moreover, as F-16 is an American jet, the US sources can't be considered fully neutral in this context. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and the Indian claim is no stronger than the Pakistani denial, thus this deserve no more of mention in the article than any other unsubstantiated claim. By the way, its you using an American source (and old one by the way, not one published in the last few weeks).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I used the said American source to state that India claimed an aerial kill of F-16. There are 10s of Indian sources which reported this claim but a fellow user asked me to come up with a foreign source; so I had to add this one. Whether the claim is right or wrong should be left on the readers to decide. But a mere mention of the claim should not be objected. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
And we do mention it, just not in the lead as it would be wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I would propose the following line in the lead just after the mention of capturing of Indian pilot (it includes narratives of both the sides):
India claimed that before getting captured, he shot down a Pakistan Air Force's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison, but Pakistan denied this.
--Yoonadue (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
What I mean was its not the only claim of planes being shot down.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian claim of downing F-16 in main body

I don't see what was wrong with this edit since it wasn't even made on lead and was complying with the points made by Slatersteven that the information can be mentioned on the body and not the lead. I would like to know "NPOV" violation was found given all claims were properly attributed. Aman Kumar Goel 02:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is right. I thought Slatersteven would be fine with adding the content to body now. But now I have gave up reverting. If there are problems with the content then they can be highlighted here or they could be modified but I don't think blanket reversion was justified. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)03:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As almost all I objected to can also be said about this why would you think that (in fact everything except placement still applies here)?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As to NPOV (which was not the only thing I object to), We say the same thing (in effect) twice There is no need for that and it looks like just pushing India's case. Secondly "the Indian Air Force reiterated that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16" is worded to make it sound like they had shot one down, that violates NPOV. Also the edit did not offer any of the counter claims or criticism of India's claims, that violates NPOV (even when the sources did).Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This sentence: "the Indian Air Force reiterated that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16" was added because its factually correct that Indian Air Force re-emphased it twice that Wing Commander Abhinandan shot down an F-16 before himself getting shot. On 28 February 2019, IAF claimed that he shot an F-16. Then again on 8 April 2019, IAF said along with radar images that before crashing, he shot down an F-16. So, IAF's reiteration about F-16 shooting is a fact and can't be contested. I don't know how addition of something which is factually correct be considered violation of NPOV. If you think that Pakistan's viewpoint is underrepresented, no one has stopped you from adding Pakistan's version in more detail. --Yoonadue (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit did not say they reiterated the CLAIM, that is why that particular line violates NPOV. As to adding Pakistani claims, it is down to those who want to include to create neutral wording. As I said on your talk page, we do not need unsubstantiated claims by either side.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


I understand your concern. Now I propose the following version of my edits in the main body which seems more NPOV:

The Indian media reported on the same day that a PAF's F-16 was shot down by IAF which fell in the Pakistani territory, but Pakistan denied any loss of its F-16. In its briefing dated 28 February 2019, the IAF claimed to have shot down a PAF's F-16 in the aerial engagement. On 8 April 2020, IAF reiterated by presenting radar images that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison before getting captured by the Pakistani forces. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As this (in effect) does not address any of my concerns, and only alters the wording slightly, No.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
In my proposed version, I removed "irrefutable evidence", placed "reiterated" statement with right date as per cited reference and also updated references overall. Can you tell your your concerns line by line or word by word? I am tired of all this now. Why don't you come up with your version so that we can collectively pick better words from your and my version to make constructive edit to the article? --Yoonadue (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
And it still implies that at the second statement provided proof it was true. I said you need to make it clear the second statement is also only a claim. I have also made it clear if you need to give equal weight to Pakistani claims (all claims). I have also said that even if you did this, why do we need unsubstantiated claims form either side?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The second statement also implies that its a claim. It doesn't present it as an established fact. As far as Pakistan's version is concerned, I have clearly mentioned that Pakistan denied any loss of its aircraft. I have spent enough time on this topic. Why don't you devote some time and come up with "more" of Pakistani claims that you find necessary? If you too don't have time, then let my lines be added and leave it upon other users to add Pakistani claims in more detail. That would be a better approach. --Yoonadue (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Which part of "why do we need unsubstantiated claims form either side?" implies I see any need to work on this so as to include it? We used to have all this unsubstantiated claims, not of which have subsequently been verified, at the time. Now there is no reason at all to include either sides propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am back here with a new proposed version for the main body. I have trimmed the old version significantly and used more neutral wordings. I hope we gain consensus this time:

On 28 February and 8 April 2019, the IAF claimed that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had shot down a PAF's F-16 aircraft from his Mig-21 Bison before getting captured by the Pakistani forces. But Pakistan denied any loss of its F-16. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not matter how many times you trim it, we do not need unsubstantiated claims from one side.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated claim?? Do you think that apart from HD video recording, every evidence is unsubstantiated claim? IAF presented whatever proof it could from AMRAAM derbis to radar images which makes their claim strong. Still, you are against even mention of its claim. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because that is what all the non Indian sources say. Does one third party RS say Yes India shot down an f-16?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Armies make all sorts of claims during armed conflict, especially one as long-running as this one. The lead should stick to presenting what independent sources say happened; all the unverified claims and counter-claims, together with their analysis by indpendent sources, belongs in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
But the problem here is that Slatersteven doesn't want even a single mention of Indian claim of F-16 downing even in the main body. --Yoonadue (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
No I said I want no mentions of either sides unsubstantiated claims.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven and Vanamonde93. There is no need to mention claims. However, I have noticed more problematic edits creeping in. The skirmishes began on the 26 February 2019, not the 14 February, which was the date of the Pulwama terrorist bombing, and, which while a great tragedy for India, is strictly speaking not a skirmish between India and Pakistan, nor has it been interpreted so by third-party international sources. I will be reverting to the original. Secondly, no peace offer was made nor accepted. A Twitter post is not a peace offer, nor a Twitter response an acceptance. That too will need to go. The skirmishes, like many, petered out. There is no need to define a concluding date citable to a source that say, "concluded on ...", and especially not a result: Inconclusive. I will be removing those as well. I have interpreted 1 March 2019, the date of the return of the Indian pilot, to be the concluding date. The conflict petered out. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


@ Slatersteven: They aren't unsubstantiated claims. There are enough evidences to refute Pakistan's denial of losing an F-16.

  • Pakistan first said that it didn't use the F-16s at all. But when India disproved it by showing AMRAAM derbis, it changed its stance saying it had the right to use any aircraft for its self-defence.
  • Initially Pakistan said that it has two Indian pilots in its custody but later changed statement to one pilot. Why so? This indicates that the second pilot actually belonged to the PAF.

If there are any reliability issues, they are on the Pakistani side rather than Indian. In your last reply, you said that words like "reiteration" needs to be removed and IAF's claims should not be given too much space. Now in my latest proposed version, I have removed the "reiterated" word and trimmed the entire content a lot from my previous proposed version. But you still say that it violates NPOV. You want the page to present that an aerial engagement took place and Pakistan clearly won 1-0 and Indian claim of shooting F-16 should not even be mentioned. I find it an utter violation of NPOV. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Or that they were lying about a second plane, and you think Pakistan cannot ID its own pilots? Not do any non Indian source you have provided say they definitely did shoot down an f-16, only that they claim to have done. No independent analysis has shown any loss of an f-16, and just accepting Indians claims and ignoring Pakistan's is a violation of wp:undue and wp:npov We either have all (that is all not just those relating to one incident) or no claims, we should not give one side undue credibility. Enough now, this is getting wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Indian claim: IAF's Mig-21 shot down F-16; Pakistani claim: No F-16 was shot down. Why do you say that claims of both sides is not being included? Btw, why did you initially revert my edit saying "Not in lead" when at the end of day, you were to oppose any change even to main body? --Yoonadue (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. Sameer Lalwani; Emily Tallo (17 April 2019), "Did India shoot down a Pakistani F-16 in February? This just became a big deal.", The Washington Post
  2. ^ "India's air force: Radar images prove Pakistan F-16 shot down", Al Arabia News, 8 April 2019
  3. Dinesh Kumar (25 January 2020), "A year later, are we any wiser about the airstrikes?", The Sunday Guardian
  4. Joseph Trevithick (28 February 2019), "India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl", The War Zone
  5. "IAF Says Has 'Irrefutable' Proof To Show Pakistan F-16 Was Shot Down", Huffington Post, 8 April 2019
  6. "The story from two sides", BBC News, 27 February 2019
  7. Joseph Trevithick (28 February 2019), "India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl", The War Zone
  8. Joint Defence Forces briefing dated 28 February 2019 on India-Pakistan tensions: Youtube
  9. "IAF Says Has 'Irrefutable' Proof To Show Pakistan F-16 Was Shot Down", Huffington Post, 8 April 2019
  10. Joseph Trevithick (28 February 2019), "India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl", The War Zone
  11. Joint Defence Forces briefing dated 28 February 2019 on India-Pakistan tensions: Youtube
  12. "IAF Says Has 'Irrefutable' Proof To Show Pakistan F-16 Was Shot Down", Huffington Post, 8 April 2019
  13. "India's air force: Radar images prove Pakistan F-16 shot down", Al Arabia News, 8 April 2019
  14. https://m.economictimes.com/defaultinterstitial.cms
  15. Joseph Trevithick (28 February 2019), "India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl", The War Zone
  16. https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/can-use-anything-in-self-defence-says-pakistan-on-f-16/story-XKXw6z9j0RKD4IspJIILLM.html
  17. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/27/india/india-pakistan-strikes-escalation-intl/index.html
Categories:
Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes Add topic