Aman.kumar.goel (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Wolfagain1 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
User Aman Kumar Goel is removing referenced material from the article. He should not behave like a biased Indian. [[User:Wolfagain1|Wolfagain1]] ([[User talk:Wolfagain1|talk]]) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
User Aman Kumar Goel is removing referenced material from the article. He should not behave like a biased Indian. [[User:Wolfagain1|Wolfagain1]] ([[User talk:Wolfagain1|talk]]) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I asked Aman Kumar Goel to stop doing vandalism and come to talk page but his sock is reverting my edits even on talk page. [[User:Wolfagain1|Wolfagain1]] ([[User talk:Wolfagain1|talk]]) 05:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:45, 8 May 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 2 April 2019
- 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 section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
2019 Kashmir airstrikes → 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in India → 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes – Most sources describe like this, multiple locations are mentioned, other such articles have this like titles
Proper title.-119.160.101.101 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Updated after first oppose.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.103.136 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Kashmir is disputed territory (see Political status of Kashmir) and is not officially accepted by the UN as part of India. Since the airstrikes were confined to Kashmir, the terminology "airstrikes in India" would indicate Wikipedia's acceptance of Kashmir as part of India. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok I’ve updated the request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.103.136 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since the nomination has been revised, I will support the form 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2019 (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.
Requested change in Infobox
Strength of JF-17 stated as "25" has not been stated by any credible source and as such the number of aircraft used should be removed. As India claims Pakistan's use of F-16s, F-16's (Indian claim) should also be added. Also, in the "Casualties and losses" section, under "Pakistan's claim" 1 Su-30 has been stated, Pakistan has not officially confirmed the shoot down of any Sukhoi. As such it should be corrected. "Friendly Fire" section should be removed because the cause of the Mi-8 crash is still being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheer Asghar (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
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... It was a big event, if India's alleged strikers in Balakot can have a page despite being debunked then an article where its proven Indian jet was shot down should be allowed to exist.
Wikipedia should be neutral, and not pandering to one state. --2A00:4802:A8D:D800:6593:1EC3:F64A:77D5 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Page was restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 7. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
NPOV
Seems overly reliant on statements by the Indian and Pakistani governments. Should made better use of independent sources. Is anyone other than Wikipedia referring to this as a "tactical victory"? VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Semiprotection applied
And I may up it to extended confirmed, if needed. We will not tolerate edit warring on this page. I declined the RfPP on this, but now I see this was a mistake. Please tread lightly and use the talk page often. El_C 23:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
Under the United States section it is mentioned that: "However, the United States Department of Defence clarified that it was “not aware” of any such investigation that was conducted".
Can anyone correct this section since the information for the above statement comes from Indian media named Hindustan Times [1].
Washington Post has also claimed that the above information is only Indian media claim. There has been no counter claims made by anybody from USA. From the source Washington Post itself:
"Indian media reported that a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of any investigation. The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report."[2]
Hence, either the above controversial statement should be removed or if it is to be retained then it should made more neutral by writing that "Indian media reported that the United States Department of Defence clarified that it was not aware of any such investigation that was conducted. However, Washington Times reported that Pentagon or state of department has not made any public statements to counter Foreign Policy report." 85.154.75.116 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not done As written, it seems adequately sourced and neutrally phrased. If additional sources become available, this should be revisited. In the interim, feel free to pursue a consensus for different wording here on the talk page and resubmit a new edit request once the consensus is established. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
VQuakr here the Washington Post source clearly claims that the line (which User:85.154.75.116 highlighted above) belongs only to Indian media (Hindustan Times). There has been no public denial or rejection of the report by any US officials. Hence it is not neutrally written. It should at least be mentioned that the above claim is made only by Hindustan Times. While Washington Times claims that there has been no public denial or rejection of the report as Hindustan times claims. 5.162.59.60 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Washington Post
Hey All Washington post has stated that the Indian media only suggested and reported that U.S department was not aware of it, so why putting under U.S Aftermath, i don't get it. Or even if you are putting it under U.S aftermath then atleast tell that Indian Media stated not the U.S itself, when we have Washington post like credible source which literally said that it was Indian media who said U.S is not aware of then i guess no need to add or even if adding please refer to it as Indian media. We have to be true. Right?? "Indian media reported that a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of any investigation. The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report." It is a better version to add, rather then just telling that U.S is not aware of it, it seems the whole criteria look funny. Hasnaat27001 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Not aware of any such investigation" and "no public denial or rejection" don't seem substantially different to me. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: That is not what i am saying, i said it is Indian media who stated and Washington post has literally stated that it's Indian media then why problem in stating that it was Indian media who stated? ali (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Its a claim by one newspaper, and needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:Right, that's what i meant and it's Indian newspaper right? So it's better to say India claimed or else Indian media claimed rather than saying U.S department as a whole stated. And also the spokesperson of U.S department said that why haven't spokesperson not been added. This article is not even was picked by any credible international sources like reuters,bbc,nytimes,abc,cnn,usa today,new york post, rt news, fox news and only been cited as Indian media in washington post outlets. I think i have made my point now, nothing would change for anyone but the quality of this article will get better L (T) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with changing "However, the United States Department of Defense clarified that it was “not aware” of any such investigation that was conducted." to "The United States Department of Defense neither confirmed nor denied Foreign Policy's report." with sourcing to the WaPo. Does everyone agree this should be done? VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:Right, that's what i meant and it's Indian newspaper right? So it's better to say India claimed or else Indian media claimed rather than saying U.S department as a whole stated. And also the spokesperson of U.S department said that why haven't spokesperson not been added. This article is not even was picked by any credible international sources like reuters,bbc,nytimes,abc,cnn,usa today,new york post, rt news, fox news and only been cited as Indian media in washington post outlets. I think i have made my point now, nothing would change for anyone but the quality of this article will get better L (T) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019
Change the "Casualties and Losses" box to list only Pakistani losses in the left box and only Indian Losses in the right box. Reasoning: it lines up with the Belligerents box above and follows other Wikipedia standard belligerents boxes.
Change the "Casualties and Losses" box to reflect Pakistani Losses as "None" and Indian Losses as "1 MiG-21 shot down, pilot (Abhinandan Varthaman) captured; 1 Su-30MKI shot down (Pakistani Claimed; Indian denied)" Reasoning: currently the Mig-21 loss is listed as a loss for both side- which is impossible. Therefore, the losses should reflect the contents of the page (for example in the section titled "Airstrikes" no mention is made of Pakistani losses and all references confirm an Indian Mig-21 shot down with conflicting reports on if a SU-30MKI was shot down). 134.223.230.152 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Some sources to expand
- Pak lie exposed by India Today TV: Pakistan flew F-16 jets to attack India --DBigXrayᗙ 10:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- State Department Reprimanded Pakistan for Misusing F-16s, Document Shows by US News --DBigXrayᗙ 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Topics Missing
Operation Bandar & Operation Swift Retort Details aren't mentioned. Knowiunderstandit (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Edits by Wolfagain1
@Wolfagain1: What you are restoring has been already explained as problematic on edit summaries. 1) a quote is undue, 2) the NY Times source has been misrepresented, 3) The see also section includes nothing which hasn't been linked on templates.
So why you are making misleading reverts? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Do not remove references
User Aman Kumar Goel is removing referenced material from the article. He should not behave like a biased Indian. Wolfagain1 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I asked Aman Kumar Goel to stop doing vandalism and come to talk page but his sock is reverting my edits even on talk page. Wolfagain1 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)