| Revision as of 11:14, 18 December 2024 editShah030000 (talk | contribs)157 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:52, 19 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,570 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike/Archive 2. (BOT) |
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
| format= %%i |
|
| format= %%i |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!--Don't remove anything above this line.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}})''': |
|
|
|
|
|
{{TextDiff|Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory,<ref name="Atlantic-Countil-DFL">{{citation|title=Surgical Strike in Pakistan a Botched Operation? Indian jets carried out a strike against JEM targets inside Pakistani territory, to questionable effect|date=28 February 2019|url=https://medium.com/dfrlab/surgical-strike-in-pakistan-a-botched-operation-7f6cda834b24|journal=Medium}} Quote: "Indian fighter jets carried out strikes against targets inside undisputed Pakistani territory, but open-source evidence suggested that the strike was unsuccessful."</ref> San Francisco-based ],<ref name="reuters-balakot-3-8-19">{{citation|author=Martin Howell|title=Satellite images show buildings still standing at Indian bombing site|date=5 March 2019|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-pakistan-airstrike-insi/satellite-images-show-buildings-still-standing-at-indian-bombing-site-idUSKCN1QN00V|publisher=Reuters|author2=Gerry Doyle|author3=Simon Scarr}} Quote: "The images produced by Planet Labs Inc, a San Francisco-based private satellite operator, show at least six buildings on the madrasa site on March 4, six days after the airstrike. ... There are no discernible holes in the roofs of buildings, no signs of scorching, blown-out walls, displaced trees around the madrasa or other signs of an aerial attack."</ref> European Space Imaging,<ref>{{citation|author=European Space Imaging|title=Satellite Imagery confirms India missed target in Pakistan airstrike|date=8 March 2019|url=https://www.euspaceimaging.com/pakistan-satellite-imagery-confirms-india-missed-target-in-pakistan-airstrike/}} Quote: " ... said managing director Adrian Zevenbergen. '... The image captured with Worldiew-2 of the buildings in question shows no evidence of a bombing having occurred. There are no signs of scorching, no large distinguishable holes in the roofs of buildings and no signs of stress to the surrounding vegetation.' "</ref> and the ],<ref name="ASPI-balakit">{{citation|author1=Marcus Hellyer|title=India's strike on Balakot: a very precise miss?|date=27 March 2019|url=https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indias-strike-on-balakot-a-very-precise-miss/|journal=The Strategist|publisher=Australian Strategic Policy Institute|author2=Nathan Ruser|author3=Aakriti Bachhawat}} Quote: "But India's recent air strike on a purported Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist camp in Balakot in Pakistan on 26 February suggests that precision strike is still an art and science that requires both practice and enabling systems to achieve the intended effect. Simply buying precision munitions off the shelf is not enough."</ref> has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.<ref name="WaPo1">{{citation|author1=Sameer Lalwani|title=Did India shoot down a Pakistani F-16 in February? This just became a big deal |date=17 April 2019|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/17/did-india-shoot-down-pakistani-f-back-february-this-just-became-big-deal/|newspaper=Washington Post|author2=Emily Tallo}} Quote: " Open-source satellite imagery suggests India did not hit any targets of consequence in the airstrikes it conducted after the terrorist attack on the paramilitaries.</ref><ref name="guardian-saafi1">{{citation|author1=Michael Safi|title=Kashmir's fog of war: how conflicting accounts benefit both sides:India and Pakistan's differing narratives are not unusual in the social media age, say experts|date=5 March 2019|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/05/kashmir-fog-of-war-how-conflicting-accounts-benefit-india-pakistan|journal=Guardian|author2=Mehreen Zahra-Malik}} Quote: "Analysis of open-source satellite imagery has also cast doubt on India's claims. A report by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab was able to geolocate the site of the attack and provide a preliminary damage assessment. It compared satellite images from the days before and after India's strike and concluded there were only impacts in the wooded areas with no damage visible to surrounding structures."</ref>|Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory,<ref name="Atlantic-Countil-DFL">{{citation|title=Surgical Strike in Pakistan a Botched Operation? Indian jets carried out a strike against JEM targets inside Pakistani territory, to questionable effect|date=28 February 2019|url=https://medium.com/dfrlab/surgical-strike-in-pakistan-a-botched-operation-7f6cda834b24|journal=Medium}} Quote: "Indian fighter jets carried out strikes against targets inside undisputed Pakistani territory, but open-source evidence suggested that the strike was unsuccessful."</ref> ],<ref name="reuters-balakot-3-8-19">{{citation|author=Martin Howell|title=Satellite images show buildings still standing at Indian bombing site|date=5 March 2019|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-pakistan-airstrike-insi/satellite-images-show-buildings-still-standing-at-indian-bombing-site-idUSKCN1QN00V|publisher=Reuters|author2=Gerry Doyle|author3=Simon Scarr}} Quote: "The images produced by Planet Labs Inc, a San Francisco-based private satellite operator, show at least six buildings on the madrasa site on March 4, six days after the airstrike. ... There are no discernible holes in the roofs of buildings, no signs of scorching, blown-out walls, displaced trees around the madrasa or other signs of an aerial attack."</ref> European Space Imaging,<ref>{{citation|author=European Space Imaging|title=Satellite Imagery confirms India missed target in Pakistan airstrike|date=8 March 2019|url=https://www.euspaceimaging.com/pakistan-satellite-imagery-confirms-india-missed-target-in-pakistan-airstrike/}} Quote: " ... said managing director Adrian Zevenbergen. '... The image captured with Worldiew-2 of the buildings in question shows no evidence of a bombing having occurred. There are no signs of scorching, no large distinguishable holes in the roofs of buildings and no signs of stress to the surrounding vegetation.' "</ref> and the ],<ref name="ASPI-balakit">{{citation|author1=Marcus Hellyer|title=India's strike on Balakot: a very precise miss?|date=27 March 2019|url=https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indias-strike-on-balakot-a-very-precise-miss/|journal=The Strategist|publisher=Australian Strategic Policy Institute|author2=Nathan Ruser|author3=Aakriti Bachhawat}} Quote: "But India's recent air strike on a purported Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist camp in Balakot in Pakistan on 26 February suggests that precision strike is still an art and science that requires both practice and enabling systems to achieve the intended effect. Simply buying precision munitions off the shelf is not enough."</ref> has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.<ref name="WaPo1">{{citation|author1=Sameer Lalwani|title=Did India shoot down a Pakistani F-16 in February? This just became a big deal |date=17 April 2019|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/17/did-india-shoot-down-pakistani-f-back-february-this-just-became-big-deal/|newspaper=Washington Post|author2=Emily Tallo}} Quote: " Open-source satellite imagery suggests India did not hit any targets of consequence in the airstrikes it conducted after the terrorist attack on the paramilitaries.</ref><ref name="guardian-saafi1">{{citation|author1=Michael Safi|title=Kashmir's fog of war: how conflicting accounts benefit both sides:India and Pakistan's differing narratives are not unusual in the social media age, say experts|date=5 March 2019|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/05/kashmir-fog-of-war-how-conflicting-accounts-benefit-india-pakistan|journal=Guardian|author2=Mehreen Zahra-Malik}} Quote: "Analysis of open-source satellite imagery has also cast doubt on India's claims. A report by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab was able to geolocate the site of the attack and provide a preliminary damage assessment. It compared satellite images from the days before and after India's strike and concluded there were only impacts in the wooded areas with no damage visible to surrounding structures."</ref>}} |
|
|
* '''Why it should be changed''': |
|
|
|
|
|
Planet labs did not conduct the analysis of the imagery, it provided the imagery and reuters (along with experts they asked) did the analysis. I think it's not that important who provided the images, so I've just replaced that part by "Reuters". |
|
|
|
|
|
No change to the references is necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<!--Don't remove anything below this line--> |
|
|
{{reftalk}} |
|
|
:{{not done}} This is about the source of imagery, not who conducted the analysis. If you think the sentence should be changed to something else, please propose that — ] (]·]·]·]) 07:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If it just said "Analysis of imagery by Plant Labs" I would agree, but in context I disagree. The DFR used Planet Labs imagery, Reuters used Planet Labs imagery, EUSI used Maxar imagery, ASPI used Maxar imagery (via EUSI). So in my opinion, this is a list of the institutions that did the analysis, as it should otherwise say "imagery by Planet Labs and Maxar". |
|
|
:Maybe it is better to make the sentence less ambiguous? |
|
|
:{{TextDiff|Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory, San Francisco-based ], European Space Imaging, and the ], has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.|Satellite imagery analyzed by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory, ], European Space Imaging, and the ], shows that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.}} ] (]) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] WDYT? ] (]) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{Done}} — ] (]·]·]·]) 07:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|
|
] (]) 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
In retaliation, Pakistan's F-16 was shot down by India's MiG-21 Bison, this is the first time in history that a MiG-21 shot down an F-16. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many Pakistani terrorist camps were destroyed |
|
| ⚫ |
:Discussed more than once, but to repeat it, this is an unconfirmed claim. ] (]) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Non-neutral language in lead== |
|
==Non-neutral language in lead== |
| Line 85: |
Line 49: |
|
Hello, i want to edit friendly fire incident. I want to add recently concluded IAF Court martial enquiry. Also I want to add additional information regarding sattellite image part, this information would really contribute to the article. Hence please allow me to contribute<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
Hello, i want to edit friendly fire incident. I want to add recently concluded IAF Court martial enquiry. Also I want to add additional information regarding sattellite image part, this information would really contribute to the article. Hence please allow me to contribute<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
:Hello {{ping|Shah030000}}, please copy here what you want to change in the format "'''I'd like to change X to Y'''" or "'''I'd like to insert X between Y and Z'''" followed by the ] needed to backup those changes. --] (]) 19:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Hello {{ping|Shah030000}}, please copy here what you want to change in the format "'''I'd like to change X to Y'''" or "'''I'd like to insert X between Y and Z'''" followed by the ] needed to backup those changes. --] (]) 19:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question. |
|
|
:"The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters. |
|
|
:between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo. |
|
|
:here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you |
|
|
:<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/world/satellite-images-show-buildings-still-standing-at-indian-bombing-site-idUSKCN1QN00V/</ref> ] (]) 11:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 == |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=no}} |
|
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|
] (]) 11:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 11:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question. |
|
I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question. |
| Line 95: |
Line 65: |
|
here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you |
|
here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you |
|
<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/world/satellite-images-show-buildings-still-standing-at-indian-bombing-site-idUSKCN1QN00V/</ref> |
|
<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/world/satellite-images-show-buildings-still-standing-at-indian-bombing-site-idUSKCN1QN00V/</ref> |
|
⚫ |
:I think we already say this more or less. ] (]) 12:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, I agree. ]] 12:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
Today, I replaced an existing citation with another one and changed the lead wording from existing "India claimed that a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet was downed, but that claim has been debunked"
to "India claimed that a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet was downed, but that claim was denied by Pakistan"
. But my edit was reverted by Slatersteven. I wish to ask him if there really exists a universally accepted agency which can "debunk" such claims made by nations during conflicts. I checked the cited American journal hoping to see something concrete but found that the quote in question was just a passing comment from author Daniel Markey (no expert on military topics) citing a Washington Post report. This WP report is itself based on a Foreign Policy report which claimed US counted Pak's F-16s; Pentagon later said that they aren't aware of any such count. So the "Foreign Policy" report remains "disputed" as we still don't know if any such count took place or not. Its better to present things as they are. We have nothing substantial to "debunk" Indian claims of downing an F-16. What we are left with are claims and counter-claims from both the nations. The present version of lead is not in compliance with WP:NEUTRAL, WP:LEAD and WP:ATT. Hence, the change is must. Dympies (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, i want to edit friendly fire incident. I want to add recently concluded IAF Court martial enquiry. Also I want to add additional information regarding sattellite image part, this information would really contribute to the article. Hence please allow me to contribute— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah030000 (talk • contribs)
I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question.
"The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters.
between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo.
here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
