Talk:2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Sourcing

Moved from User talk:Gotitbro § Media sources

Please reach a WP:CONSENSUS first before reverting to add contentious material. Figures based on unnamed "military sources" in local newspapers will definitely not go in the infobox (and adding those figures in the infobox with the tagline of 'According to India" is wholly misleading since they are not official claims). Discuss here if they should be in the "article body" (infobox is a clear no go for unofficial media claims), and I think they shouldn't even be in the body because unnamed and no international media has reported on them. Moving the discussion from my Talk page to here for better participation, also pinging Kautilya3 for input. Gotitbro (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shankargb: This is the official account of the ADG PI and mentions no casualty besides their own (vice versa for the ISPR). Since you had doubts about the what the actual claims were. Gotitbro (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

But why you are citing your own research that isn't backed by a source? See WP:OR. There are hundreds of fact-checking websites which are doing that job efficiently. Can you cite any of the sources which are disputing those statistics from WP:RS? You haven't properly moved the conversation. You should also stop making reverts against multiple editors since your edit was reverted and now you should follow WP:BRD. I will also echo my message which I made here because it seems that you haven't clarified it yet.

Unless the military or reliable sources dispute the information, you have no reason to ignore reliable sources who are quoting the "military sources".[1]

2 weeks have elapsed, and nobody other than you has disputed these figures provided by "military sources" as confirmed by numerous WP:RSs. You should not engage in WP:CANVASSING. Just because you don't see statistics on some Twitter account, it doesn't mean that the media is making up claims. Your WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim isn't backed by a reliable source or a Wikipedia policy. I am still not sure what is your vendetta against "anonymous" sources. Just because you don't know the person, doesn't mean the source becomes unreliable. You can take it up to the media's own email or website instead of filing your disagreement here. I would again recommend you to read WP:RS before edit warring any further. Shankargb (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you really WP:WIKILAWYERING me here about RS about sourcing while adding "According to India" (by media) to the infobox. And please, Kautilya is an experienced editor and I have every right for getting a more informed editor's eyes on here (not everything is canvassing) especially when you have no idea about what official/media claims are and how to treat them on articles. You have not answered any of the above queries, cite me an official press release from the Indian Army which makes those claims or a news report which explicitly says that the Indian Army spokesperson said that. Unless you can do that, please stop restoring baseless edits of an IP on an WP:ARBIPA page. Also, "You haven't properly moved the conversation."; this is the correct way of moving discussions not everything has Ctrl+C'ed everywhere. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Gotitbro. I haven't been following this. So I won't offer an opinion.

However, I would note that Shankargb has reinstated the content, without answering your objection, viz., media claims =/= official reports. That constitues WP:Edit warring. Shankargb, I suggest you reach agreement with Gotitbro before redoing the edit. If you can't reach agreement, take it to WP:DR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I answered him on his talk page, see this. I said that it is not a "media claim" since the information comes from "military source". Above discussion is a continuation of that other discussion. Shankargb (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Gotitbro: You are still yet to provide reliable source which disputes these figures backed by reliable sources. Read this: "India launched a counter-attack, killing six to seven Pakistani soldiers, including two SSG (Special Service Group) commandos, and injuring some 10 persons on the other side. Videos released by the Indian Army showed the enemy targets in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) being destroyed..... Ministry of Defence spokesperson Col Rajesh Kalia said Pakistan used mortars and targeted civilian areas in India. “Our troops retaliated, causing casualties and substantial damage to Pakistan army’s infrastructure across the LoC. Several ammo and fuel dumps and multiple terrorist launch pads were damaged,” he said." Shankargb (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shankargb: Now we are getting somewhere. Please clarify whether 11 killed/15 injured is an official figure from the Army (or a media speculation) cause I don't see it in the above quote, if not then add/edit exactly what the army has stated ("casualties", "bunkers destroyed" etc.) to the infobox. We need to be exact with what is presented in the infobox. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the high-quality reliable sources make it clear that these are official figures of Pakistani casualties, derived by the Indian army from intercepts of the Pakistani communications—what then makes you think otherwise? Let me make it perfectly clear that you, as a voluntary contributor of Wikipedia, do not get to impugn the veracity of figures supplied by reliable sources. It's not your job... Shankargb (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shankargb: Stop with your condescending tone will you and try to cooperate here. It is exactly my (and other editors) job to question the reliability of sources. Here is the full quote from above: "According to intercepts of Pakistan Army’s communication, those killed included two commandos from its Special Service Group, the sources said." "Sources said" is buzzword for an anonymous source which have no place in an encyclopedia clearly not in the infobox. The statements from the ministry of defence spokesperson provide no exact figures. Unless you can provide an exact quote from the army/government which provides the "11 killed/15 injured" figure I will be removing it from the infobox and replacing it with "several casualties" as is the exact statement by spokesperson Rajesh Kalia. Gotitbro (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how things work. News agencies cite sources, named or unnamed all the time, that does not them less credible. In fact, in this particular instance, they are specific that their sources are military in nature. By advancing such unconvincing arguments, falsely accusing others of patronising you and of non-cooperation in place of focusing on content, I'm afraid you are just driving folks away. If you really believe that you can dismiss reliable sources such as PTI, the largest Asian news agency, and The Tribune as unreliable, then you're better off putting such efforts, however worthwhile, at WP:RSN which is thataway, but know this that will only get you so far...

Re: the sources are military in nature bit: here is this India Today source[2] that is even more specific about their sources from whom they derived their figures i.e., the army itself. If these reliable sources believed their sources to be credible and reliable enough, then you, my friend, are a nobody to question the same. That's how things work here. Shankargb (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Indian and Pakistani official sources have stated that at midnight tonight, a ceasefire agreement will come into effect. If anyone has issues with adding this go ahead and ping me. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References