Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 15 April 2024

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.

A news item involving 2019 Balakot airstrike was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 February 2019.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force Pakistan Mid‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

International media

Can we please add the reporting done by Al Jazeera, the Guardian, BBC, Reuters etc too? This is in relation to the extent of damage. --2409:4064:796:63A3:62C7:19B0:C39E:FDD6 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Already western media was biased and white washed what was the response of indian airforce on a very highly sophisticated target and killed 250 to 300 terrorists that day. Everything happens in war and pakistan very cleverly white washed the impact and replace the CGI sheets in order to not being caught on satelite imagery. What iaf has done has done and world should expose pakistan on terrorism nobody will get any benifit from it. N4netra (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Soruces? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

the Indian airforce, lack of trustiness of the PAF, and the fact that the satellite images were taken a few days after the strike which is well over enough time to replace the roof. moreover, if really no damage have been done, then they wouldnt have to shut down the place for a month, but they did. Its pretty obvious that the strikes were successful. Also we all know Al Jazeera, the guardian and specially BBC (and AL jazeera) are very anit-India organizations as they have proven in the past Experience31 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

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

On 26 February 2019, twelve Mirage 2000 jets of the Indian Air Force took off from MAHARAJPPURA airbase GWALIOR crossed the Line of Control and stuck an alleged Jaish-e-Mohammed operated terrorist camp at Balakot. Indian foreign secretary termed the airstrike as "non-military, preemptive airstrikes".There are 10 fighter are for bombing and 2 for taking photos. Chillychikoo (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

India Today report N4netra (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

POV

It has not been established that JeM camp was attacked. India claims so but Pakistan denies. So on what basis is that included as a fact in this page? This page has to be tagged for POV as most sources used is Indian media. I can hardly find any Pakistani media reports. Libin Scaria (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And inclusion of Pakistani claims by me have been removed by a user claiming it to be non-neutral. Indian claim that 200-300 militants were killed which is an outright lie is included and the user finds it neutral. Pakistan claims that Indian jets had to return after Pakistani Air Force response. This the user finds unacceptable. Is it fair to include claims by one side alone? This article definitely is written from an Indian perspective. Libin Scaria (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The story is still developing and claims by both sides have to be taken into account for now. We can slowly dimiss the lie and propaganda without proper sources. I still do think the 350 militants killed should be changed to alleged by the media(since no official claim has been on casualities has been made yet).rationalwikiuser 20:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to disagree. All statements in the article have been sourced to news articles. This is not a claim from any user. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is written in the manner that Indian claim is a fact while Pakistani claim is just a claim. You cannot use multitude of Indian sources and state that the sources are alright. Also the lead earlier started with the sentence "Indian jets attacked JeM base camp attack in Balakot". This is an Indian claim only. According to Pakistan, there was no attack and the payload was dropped when Indian jets were fleeing back. Both these details should be included in the article without trying to establish anything. I have modified the lead but the rest of the article includes mostly claims by India.Libin Scaria (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV did not work, now the other user is bringing up WP:COPYVIO to remove content undesirable for him/her. Just sad that such experienced users are not able to accept facts as facts and is trying to push their POV to the article. Libin Scaria (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Media and spokespersons both in India and in Pakistan are being described as "jumping monkeys", in both Urdu and Hindi. That is the only common aspect to the media resourcesmay be the case here), that does lead to POV problems, but several Civilian and Military figures have held press-conferences, so a balanced and neutral wikipedian may find complimentary sources. Try harder126.243.120.126 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

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

Here is a look at seven things India used to destroy terror camps across LoC

• AIR ASSET 1: 12 Indian Air Force Mirage-2000 fighter jets - Same jet that hit Pak during Kargil
• AIR ASSET 2: 1,000-kg laser-guided bombs - MBDA BGL 1000 laser-guided bomb
• AIR ASSET 3: The IAI Heron - Machatz-1 - medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
• AIR ASSET 4: Embraer 145 Netra - Airborne early warning and control developed by DRDO
• AIR ASSET 5: IL-78 REFUELLER AIRCRAFT - Took off from Agra for midair refuelling assistance
• AIR ASSET 6: Su 30 MKI - Took off from Sirsa airbase to tackle any eventuality
• AIR ASSET 7: Pechora missiles - Missiles were on standby near the line of control and international border to counter eventuality Abhishekarya1 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made, and you have not provided any sources. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the contributor wants to list "Air Assets" of the Government of India used agressively in the disputed alleged Violation Of Pakistani Airspace (Line of Control is not official border, but it could be seen as violation of De Facto Pakistani Airspace). If sources are available (although access to such publication may be limited), there should not be a problem including the list, although if situation escalates such lists may become exhaustive. There are sources126.243.120.126 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

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

In the end of first paragraph, we have line "Pakistan claimed that no casualties or damage has been inflicted."

After this line, we should also add: "Indian media reported that there are about 200 to 300 militants were killed during this operation."

Otherwise, you are showing partial information in the first paragraph (that is read by majority of readers). 73.93.155.64 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan is now reporting civilian casualties due to subsequent shelling.Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
The article is totally neutral please refer the bold words bellow, I hope you fill get it.
According to Indian media, the jets struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed-operated militant camp at Balakot and about 350 militants were killed during the operation. According to Pakistan, the Indian military aircraft violated their airspace near Muzaffarabad, Pakistan scrambled its jets in response, forcing the Indian jets back, dropping its payload while returning. Pakistan claimed that no casualties or damage has been inflicted.

Jasonx5 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Closing. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 21:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Editors please add a section with on the fake video which is circulated on social media which pretends to be original visuals of airstrikes

Hi over there,
Can anyone please add that a fake video was circulated over the social media which claimed to be the visuals of the air strikes but in reality they are are screen-clips from a military simulation video game called ARMA 2 in the operation arrowhead in which US army helicopter Apache engages Taliban in Takistan mountains.

URL of the original video on YouTube posted about 3 years before the air-strikes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7CnMEhF54o

Reliable Sources :-

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/fake-alert-no-this-is-not-the-video-of-indian-air-force-strike-in-balakot/articleshow/68166991.cms

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/feb/26/fact-check-fake-iaf-airstrike-video-goes-viral-1944010.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/videos/videos-nation/2019/feb/26/fake-news-scene-from-the-video-game-arma-2-circulates-as-footage-of-iaf-air-strike-in-balakot-106426.html

https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/fake-news-iaf-air-strikes-across-loc

https://www.bhaskar.com/no-fake-news/news/two-fake-videos-viral-on-social-media-after-indias-air-strike-on-pakistan-01493398.html

https://scroll.in/article/914675/video-game-clips-old-footage-go-viral-claiming-to-show-indian-air-force-attack-on-jaish-camp

https://www.latestly.com/social-viral/fact-check/fact-check-these-videos-going-viral-as-iaf-air-strike-on-jem-terror-camps-across-loc-in-balakot-are-fake-665271.html

https://www.jagran.com/politics/national-pakistan-air-attack-attack-fake-video-viral-18992139.html

This will help to reduce spread of this fake video, which has infact gained 10s of millions of views across Facebook and Whatsapp

Jasonx5 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what we should not do. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 21:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

New York Times report

Can someone add this information from New York times. I believe it is important to the article:

"It was the first time that Indian aircraft had crossed the Kashmir Line of Control to strike in decades. But it was unclear what, if anything, the attack jets hit on the Pakistani side, raising the possibility that India was making a calculated bet to assuage public anger but minimize the risk of a major Pakistani military response."

"Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country. Analysts and diplomats in New Delhi said the targets of the Indian airstrikes were unclear, as any terrorist groups operating along the border would have cleared out in recent days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India vowed retaliation over the Kashmir attack."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jets.html?module=inline

Also could someone look into the issue of Balakot location problem? Balakot mentioned by Pakistan is the one which is near LoC. Meanwhile Indian security officials have only mentioned Balakot. They never mentioned which Balakot it took place. So the Balakot location should be corrected and the page specifiy which Balakot the strike took place. Source:

• https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497
• https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/

Here Indian officials talk about Balakot but they never specify which Balakot did the strike took place. https://thewire.in/security/iaf-airstrikes-in-pakistan-what-we-know-what-we-dont-know Alibaloshi12 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quoting old reports to mislead. Pak DG ISPR quoted Balakot in Muzaffarabad sector, there is only one Balakot In Muzaffarabad Sector, the one in KP. The Balakot in KP has the largest terrorist camp of JeM. enough reports have been published, that clarifies which Balakot. there is no confusion now. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray which one of the above report is old? Even in the most recent interview DG ISPR claimed that Indian Airforce only managed to come 3 to 4km inside Pakistan. Here is the most recent tweet made by DG ISPR: https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100251560985145346?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

The Balakot which is in KPK is at least 80 km from LOC. I am not misleading anyone. None of the officals from both sides ever mentioned that it was Balakot of KPK. It was only speculation made by some media but later DG ISPR clarified it. Hence the information should be updated. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the officals from both sides ever mentioned that it was Balakot of KPK yes but they mentioned Balakot. there was confusion in the intitial reports. but it was clear in the later reports. see BBC article

FYI Balakot is mentioned by the official spokesperson of the ISI, the DG ISPR.

• Link to DG ISPR tweet -> https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377
• Link to web archive of the DG ISPR tweet -> https://web.archive.org/web/20190226043211/https:/twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377
• Link to Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet. https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr
• Link to web archive of Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet https://web.archive.org/web/20190226073835/https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr

hope it helps.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray in your previous post you were telling me about using old reports to mislead people.

• The tweet you cited from DG ISPR including all the references, all are from early period. See the time itself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 This was cited at 5:36 am on 26 January 2019

• While the ISPR tweet which I quoted in my above comment https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100251560985145346 is from 8:29 am on 26 January 2019.

So which one of these tweets is new? DG ISPR clarified their error. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times issued a second report , where the location is pin-pointed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 that was reported before ISPR clarified their remarks. You can see that the article from NYT is citing the old tweet by ISPR which showed trees destroyed by the airstrike. I also remember reading that before DG ISPR clarified the location. If it was new then it most definitely would have cited the news tweet made by ISPR regarding the 3 to 4km claim. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY sources do not override WP:SECONDARY sources. If the New York Times made any correction to their reports, please let us know.

Also, please HELP:TALK to find out how to indent your posts properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 will these classify as reliable secondary sources:

• https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497 "The second Balakot where the Indian Air Force struck is a small village located around 4 to 5km from the Line of Control (LoC) in the Pakistan side of Kashmir."

• https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/ "According to the reports, the Balakot in question is one in Azad Jammu Kashmir. Indian jets could only come inside Pakistani airspace for 3-4 miles."

• https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indian-air-force-violated-line-of-control-claims-pakistan/articleshow/68161372.cms "Hours later, the ISPR said Indian aircrafts' "intrusion" across the LOC in Muzafarabad Sector was within 3-4 miles in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir."

On the other hand, Pakistan defense minister claimed that Indian aircrafts came only 4 to 5km inside Pakistan. Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/balakot-air-strike-pak-ministers-grilled-by-media-on-why-paf-was-caught-napping/ "Khattak and Qureshi stuck to the Pakistani narrative that the IAF fighter aircraft only intruded 4-5 km inside Pakistan air space and that when they were challenged by PAF aircraft they returned back to Indian air space."

Hence you can see that Pakistan claim has always been from 3 to 4km or from 4 to 5km, not more then that. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You titled this section as New York Times report. Please stick to that topic. If you want to discuss Pakistani reports, you are welcome to start a new section. But I think there would be little point in that. The Pakistani claims seem to have already been well-covered in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Alibaloshi12 Answer me honestly first. Do you really believe that Pakistan is making all this diplomatic hullabaloo and media noise and nuclear command meeting simply because Indian jets came 4km inside LOC? Someone has to be really naive to think so. Please see the 12 min long video of DG ISPR PRESS BRIEFING on the incident. He talks about the location. Even Rajnath Singh clarified that this is the inner Balakot that has the big camp. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I thought we were supposed to be neutral here and should not care about what our personal opinion is regarding the situation. Why are you sticking to old claims? I have clearly fulfilled all the requirements which you and Kautilya3 told me about. All of the above cited source show that Pakistan narrative has always been 3 to 4 km or 4 to 5 km. It is newspapers fault that they interpreted it the wrong way. Here I will again post the newest tweet made by ISPR: https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 please read it. Here are the newspaper citing it:

• https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indian-air-force-violated-line-of-control-claims-pakistan/articleshow/68161372.cmsn
• https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/

If you don't want to change it then let some other neutral editor deal with the situation. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• 1. Please follow WP:INDENT
• 2. CHECK OUT this Reuters article and tell me which Balakot are they referring to?
• 3. Show me a clear reference that clearly shows that Pakistani ISI Spox referred to the Azad KASHMIR "BALA KOTE" as being attacked.

and then we can take you seriously --DBigXrayᗙ 08:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan has intentionality replaced CGI sheets on Balakot camps same day in order not to caught by satellite imagery and small hole shown in india today report shows how spice bombs target any area . N4netra (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Civilian deaths

Civilian deaths in the shelling on the same day is both notable and widely reported. It should not be removed.Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: its better to overcite in early stages of article editing. This content has already been removed once.Bless sins (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Please use the article talk page for such kind of spamming. OVERCITE is a problem and it will be fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Weapons in Pulwama strike

@Gazoth: why was this removed ? It can be reworded, but it comes from a reliable source and is relevant.Bless sins (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It would not be worth keeping after being reworded. After adding some attribution such as "New York Times stated that" and then further qualifying it with something along the lines of "likely", it would become too complicated for a summary. The details are always available in the main article. The summary should be short and simple. —Gazoth (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No images in article claiming there is

In the Incident part, there is no image provided. And the article claims there is "Pakistan reported Indian aircraft violated their airspace near Muzaffarabad and "released a payload" near Balakot. They claimed that there was open space where the aircraft dropped the bombs, and provided images of destroyed forest to corroborate their account.". Can anyone clarify if there are images released or not? If so, provide a link with them. Snitor (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor did release pictures at 5:11AM on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100231826348617728), however due to apparent sunlight and slow dirt buildup (sunrise in Pakistan was on 6:41AM), these claims may be false. GentleGiant121 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"According to India"

Please limit phrases like "according to India" to official statements only. The media reports are highly unreliable in situations like this. They should not be labelled as "India". The same goes for "Pakistan". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagged . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. "Indian media claimed", or "According to Pakistani media" etc would make more sense, although it is usually the Government of India that feeds Indian media the statements. Good to check though. N1 Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jet shot down

There have been more air incursions and, reportedly, one Indian fighter shot down. -- Veggies (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

it is not a part of Balakot airstrike. it is a separate incident.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It may need an entirely new article, I dunno. Just FYI for everyone. -- Veggies (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

indeed, but news is not clear yet. Indian media is reporting something else.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

On February 27, Pakistan claimed that it had shot down two IAF jets, with one pilot arrested in its own Kashmir airspace.

References

1. "Pakistan 'shoots down two Indian jets'". 2019-02-27. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

• Hi @Sherenk1: I have moved this to talk since India clarified that all its pilots are safe, appears as propaganda warfare. India claims that one F16 of Pakistan crashed in India. lets wait for clear news. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @DBigXray: That is why I specified claim. We can add India's clarification if we have the sources. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• NO, IMHO There is no need to rush in unconfirmed conflicting news information into the aftermath section. Let it be clarified first. This article is about the Balakot airstrike and not about the airspace violation done by PAF. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement released by ISPR is official and notable. 39.37.149.198 (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.dawn.com/news/1466347

• We should certainly mention the fake claims made by Pakistani media: Do not believe Pakistan media. They are peddling FAKE NEWS of IAF jet crash. People can have a good laugh over an otherwise grim story. 117.198.113.198 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not to mention the New York times and the guardian articles which are laughing on India News surgical strike of killing a tree terrorist. 39.37.149.198 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Didn't get you. Could you try writing that in English please? 117.198.113.198 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There's been a confirmation of one IAF pilot MIA by Indian Foriegn Affairs ministry https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/air-force-pilot-missing-pakistan-claims-hes-in-their-custody-we-are-ascertaining-claims-government-2000101 152.14.118.25 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

India says lost one plane in Pakistan combat, pilot missing. How's the laugh? 103.225.221.229 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• One pilot in exchange for 350 dead Pakistani terrorists? I'd say the laughs are very loud on this side of the border. 117.198.113.198 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, Just some tree terrorists. Where is the proof? Even the families of pulwama victims asked for the proofs and pictures. Looks like a pacifier given to you by modi govt to win elections. You don't even have any technical proof or satellite images. 119.152.133.208 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious, what is a tree terrorist!? As for "technical proof" (whatever that is supposed to mean in your country) here are some links . Don't expect India to release full details of the entire operation anytime soon, just like the surgical strikes whose documents were kept confidential for nearly two years. 117.198.113.238 (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. http://news.trust.org//item/20190227100019-t9so1/
2. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/iaf-air-force-pilots-missing-after-air-strike-pakistan

Pak media are fake they showing old crash airplane photos.what a media!....laugh Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Pak news reporter dont have any proof of incident but talk on news like that they are army head of pak.... Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed that an Indian pilot is missing in action after a Mig-21 Bison fighter plane was lost while engaging with Pakistani jets after they violated Indian airspace. 182.179.183.1 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "India-Pak Tensions LIVE: IAF Wing Commander Missing After MiG-21 Crash, Pakistan Claims He is in Their Custody, Says Govt". News18. 27 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019.

What the great performance by mig 21 oldest figher shot down top fighter of pak f-16.how the josh? Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Indiamerijaan2001:Where is the proof? Pakistan showed all of its pictures and videos immediately. what are you waiting for? Looks like a pacifier given to you by modi govt to win elections. Try to follow international media. 119.152.133.208 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Here you go. Jai Hind. 117.198.113.238 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to expand scope

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: Withdrawn. also moot, since the nom has now created separate article at the target location. (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was proposed in this section that 2019 Balakot airstrike be renamed and moved to 2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation. The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links: current log • target log

2019 Balakot airstrike → 2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation – The aftermath section of this article is becoming longer than the incident itself, and should also mention the aircraft confrontations as mentioned in previous talk section. We should therefore expand the scope of this article, since the Balakot airstrike can then be put better in its context. This title is consistent with previous confrontation listed at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. I've started the target article, but it's practically still fitting to simply overwrite it with this one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. More incidents are happening in the border and a single article covering everything would be better.Libin Scaria (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Yes. Covering the whole thing here is best and for that moving to new name is required. Shanze1 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose 2019 Balakot airstrike is a specific and internationally notable incident. If someone wants to create an article about all the standoffs and attacks that happened in 2019, they are welcome to do so, but that in itself is not a justification to get rid of the article that deals specifically with this Internationally notable event. I also note that there is another article titled 2019 India–Pakistan standoff --DBigXrayᗙ 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The Pulwama attack, airstrike and its aftermath can be detailed at 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. 2.51.20.34 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Withdrawing as nominator. I will now merge 2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation to 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, and let this be a separate article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the specific incident so I dont think it should be renamed or moved to already established article which is relatable but this incident is quiet independent and highly (Internationally notable) MrZINE 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose no need to change Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 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.

Numbers 27.02.19

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

change "Destruction of JeM terror camp at Balakot, killing at least 325 terrorists" in the results section to "Destruction of JeM terror camp at Balakot, killing at least 350 terrorists" as given sources give the number as 350, and the rest of the page gives the number as 350 UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ UniqueUsername nr1453,you are right there are 325 terrorist kill and 25 commandars therefore total is 350. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed already. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

New article by Fransesco Marino states that atleast 35 bodies were transported off from the site after the incident. 12 members sleeping in a shack and rest were presumed former military operatives. Also, Indian Air Force officials have asserted that that synthetic aperture radar — which provides finer spatial resolution than conventional beam-scanning radar — reveals that they destroyed four target buildings below the ridge, where the Jaish-e-Muhammad has several buildings, including a seminary(This second line could be disputable until further proof). Ref: https://www.firstpost.com/india/eyewitnesses-say-indian-air-strike-on-balakot-killed-dozens-of-terrorists-including-former-isi-agents-6182671.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.175.32 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

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

Reference Point 29: Here Nytimes article is quoted verbatim as, "Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country", but purposefeully only selective mention of article is done verbatim UPTO the "Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps" ommitting the rest of it.

So Please change "However, Western security officials questioned the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps" TO ""Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country"". Rajeevsingh007 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DBigXrayᗙ 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, it is unnecessary to attribute this to the New York Times, as it is a reliable source and no one has disputed its assertion that Western security analysts believe that. Otherwise, to be consistent, it would be necessary to attribute the other information in the background section too.Bless sins (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I'm open to rewording the sentence. It is good to not copy verbatim from newspapers and reword them.Bless sins (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, it's not just good, you are required to not copy paste text from copyrighted sources. —Gazoth (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not the one who copied and pasted. I propose: "Western security officials questioned the existence of such a training camp, saying that large camps are no longer operating in Pakistan, instead militant groups operate in small scattered groups." I'm open to other wording choices.Bless sins (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, I think that would be close paraphrasing. —Gazoth (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a wording proposal?Bless sins (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Bless sins,pleace dont copy paste sentences. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

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

Change 'Indian claim: 350 militants killed' to 'Indian claim: many militants killed' Ref: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-government-s-full-statement-on-surgical-airstrike-in-pakistan-1465217-2019-02-26 Reason: Officially India never stated 350, thats only Medias' view which varies from 200 to 350. Only official statements should be considered as the "claim". 203.110.242.16 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done —Gazoth (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Request correction of biased sentence

I do not blame anyone for this biased statement. Note that Inidia claims all of Kashmir. The sentence in question is about the India view but says it crossed into Pakistan. No it cross the line of control, not Pakistan. Note I am for Misplaced Pages neutrality, not pro Pakistan.

Indian version On 26 February 2019, twelve Mirage 2000 jets of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crossed the Line of Control around 3:30 am and bombed a JeM-operated terrorist camp at Balakot. The Indian foreign secretary termed the airstrike as "non-military, preemptive airstrikes". This was India's first airstrike within Pakistan since the war of 1971.[30

Better

This was India's first airstrike to cross the line of control since the war of 1971

Janet Bourne (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Janet Bourne you are very right. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Janet Bourne: Balakot is in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. The current wording is factually accurate and I see nothing biased with it. 2402:3A80:D0A:9E78:9076:D216:EEC:EAF8 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Janet Bourne: Hi Janet, the fighters first crossed the "line of control", in the disputed territory, and then crossed the recognized border between India and Pakistan. The statement is a bit confusing, but correct. Check out the map and you'll see how it was. If I had the Wiki Chops, I'd put the flight path on a map, but the Indian government is unlikely to release the flight path. I'll have a go at clarifying it. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Add images of JEM camp

Just now indian officials release images of jem camps it is very important proof to show world.please add it Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Indiamerijaan2001, what? ∯WBG 14:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric nothing

User:Indiamerijaan2001 please remember to provide the links of the content you are requesting to add.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Official spokesperson of government of India's statements

I do believe nothing else should be added to Indian claims in this article. Jasonx5 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What I meant by nothing else in the above comment is that anything other than the Government of India's press releases or Tweets by any secretory of government of India should be called a claim by The Republic Of India same is for Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Jasonx5 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

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

How can some one write a complete claimed base article without any sort of evidence? no bombs, no blasts, no dead bodies, no buildings nothing. I am as a writer asking to remove this page or write that its claimed by india only. Whole world and world wide media denies such claims by India. Why this page is protected for me to edit anything? Valerian11 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If you read carefully, the claims of all the stakeholders have been mentioned. And, since all these claims have garnered enough media coverage (not restricted by nationality, either), they shall be mentioned. As more and more neutral analysis comes, they will be added to the article. ∯WBG 06:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Pakistan will deny any casualties and hide all evidence as usual. Just as they claim that there are no terrorists in their country and that they have won all the wars against India. What Pakistani government and media says should be taken with a pinch of salt. See 2402:3A80:D3A:F57F:DB72:DE70:4085:1DC4 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Claims of coverup

Where does this article get its information from? If its getting it from the Indian military, then it should be treated as an official Indian claim. If not, it should give some indication as to where the information came from. This is quite poor journalism to make claims out of thin air.Bless sins (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Could be their own analysis of the situation. Orientls (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.firstpost.com/india/eyewitnesses-say-indian-air-strike-on-balakot-killed-dozens-of-terrorists-including-former-isi-agents-6182671.html - New aricle by Fransesca Marino, pointing towards a coverup and eye-witness statements, the village Jaba near balakot where the attack seems to have took place was cordoned off according to the article. 107.13.175.32 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sheikh Rasheed

"Pakistan Railway Minister Sheikh Rashid admitted that fourteen Indian fighter jets had entered Pakistan's air space and caused destruction to madrasa's run by Azhar Sahab (JeM chief Masood Azhar) while addressing the joint session of Pakistani parliament."

Are there any neutral sources to ascertain this claim? Can't find any non-Indian news outlet reporting this. If a Pakistan Federal Minister had admitted to anything of the sort, it would've been major news 103.78.135.203 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian 14 fighters plane crossed International Border & Line of Control and bombed the Jaish-e-Mohammed buildings. Statement in Pakistan Parliament. Ref - after 6 minutes into speech:

References

1. "Sheikh Rasheed Complete Speech Joint Session of Parliament | SAMAA TV". 28 February 2019.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

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

Could someone update the Indian airforce narrative. Indian airforce has changed their narrative. This time they claim that they never crossed the loc. they claim that they fired their missiles from the Indian side of the border. Ironically they also claim that the missile was able to damage the roof. While 1000 lbs bomb can wipe out the entire infrastructure. 37.200.187.104 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Narrative is bogus"

This edit removes a quote by the New York Times, which is a reliable source, saying the "narrative is bogus". Please explain. This material deserves to be in the article. @Winged Blades of Godric:Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, read Pakistan Under Siege: Extremism, Society, and the State by Madiha Afzal which makes it amply clear that militant camps are running full fledged in certain areas. ∯WBG 15:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan military was (supposedly) targeting these camps as late as 2017. I have come across some academic dissertation on these camps, hardly a few months back but can't recall the specifics to relocate it. ∯WBG 15:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither of these sources mentions any training camp in Balakot.Bless sins (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Border

The article currently says that IAF crossed the Line of Control in Kashmir to conduct the airstrikes. But it would also have had to cross the International Border, so the article should reflect that. Balakot is not in disputed territory.Bless sins (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily, SPICE 2000 and Popeye have large stand-off ranges (at least 60 km) and Balakot is really close to the border. —Gazoth (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ANALYSIS. And follow it. We can only add what reliable sources say, nothing more. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Damage of Balakot strike by IAF is now visible - Its complete

Damage of Balakot strike by IAF is now visible - Its complete. First see old satellite photos of JEM camp from google maps (change from map view to satellite view) at : https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B025'59.0%22N+73%C2%B019'28.3%22E/@34.432871,73.3235627,311m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.4330556!4d73.3245278 Then see latest JEM camp satellite photos at : https://zoom.earth/#34.433061,73.324532,19z,sat (Zoom Earth shows new NASA satellite images every day. Explore satellite and aerial images of the Earth in a simple, zoomable interface. Zoom into near-live satellite images from NASA and Bing Maps. Previously known as Flash Earth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8780:F0:6531:EC32:235B:2DCC (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent brother. I hope media will notice this. Please add this to the Article. Dagana4 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting visuals. Thanks for sharing. Dagana4 has any media source covered this ? --DBigXrayᗙ 10:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Haven't noticed yet. See . They have many important statements to make about those crater photos. Dagana4 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The coordinates of this complex are 34°25′59″N 73°19′28″E / 34.433037°N 73.324467°E / 34.433037; 73.324467. The coordinates given in the article are 34°27′50″N 73°19′06″E / 34.463954°N 73.318442°E / 34.463954; 73.318442. Which of these is right? I have no idea. In any case, we need reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the ZoomEarch site says "no daily images available here". So, the image could have been from a long time ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, absolutely. Nathan, Sheldon et al combinedly assert that Zoom Earth displays old Bing imagery, once zoomed. And, that these photos are actually much old (prob. during the construction phase) and hence, not any helpful to the current analysis. ∯WBG 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, clicking on the question mark at the right top corner leads to a FAQ banner which (among other stuff) states Only NASA images (where clouds are visible) are updated daily. Bing Maps images (where buildings are visible) are not updated daily and are several years old. ∯WBG 15:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Casualties: "Unknown" vs. 0

Perhaps it's still too early, but as reports and satellite images continue to stream in confirming no casualties or damage in the Balakot strike, how long will this article continue to say the casualty count is "Unknown" instead of what seems to be the consensus outside of India, which is 0 casualties? In other words, at what point does saying "Unknown" amount to promoting a conspiracy theory?

The official Indian statement is saying it was "a very large number", but even a hedgy statement like that doesn't add up to what neutral observers have seen on the ground and in satellite imagery. If no buildings were even damaged, it stands to reason there were no casualties either. Living in a time where even government official statements can be falsehoods makes this all the more difficult. In any case, this is a very important number. Afinebalance (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

spice bomb capacity used in balakot strike

spice bombs capacity is 453 kg, 907 kg, or 113 kg (1000, 2000, or 250 pounds).but the bombs used are written 1000 kg. Pastbirth (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

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

Synthetic aperture radar imagery does show entry holes in the roof since the attack though patched up with corrugated iron roofing two days later. The only weapon commensurate with the pre and post imagery would be a low mass ordnance (~ 75kg) designed to penetrate the roof and explode inside the structure causing mainly anti-personnel damage. Pakistan has granted no access to the madarasa and put on a dog and pony show on the hillside under the madrasa showing what appear to be unrelated IED craters from JeM bombing practice runs? Pavelluzhinsky (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Al Jazeera accused Pakistan of trying to hide the casualties and playing the statesman with its immediate pro-peace gestures in order to defeat India in a "war of perceptions".

Can somebody add this?

That is not Al Jezeera, it is an op-ed by Ajai Shukla. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagana4 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Onsite Damage Assessment: Pakistan' refusal to allow international journalists to visit Balakot site

Damage section is currently out of balance due to ommission of significant detail.

The following references need to be added in Damage section:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/no-access-to-pakistan-religious-school-that-india-says-it-bombed/ar-BBUwkrw

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-pakistan/india-says-pakistan-hiding-information-by-blocking-access-to-bombing-site-idUSKBN1QQ05E

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/3rd-time-in-9-days-pakistan-stops-media-from-visiting-madrassa-bombed-by-iaf/articleshow/68318987.cms

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-denies-reuters-access-to-madarasa-targetted-by-iaf/article26471697.ece

Apparently, it has been over 12 days since air strikes have happened and Pakistan has thrice blocked the attempts of international media to visit the actual site for damage assessment. It also needs to mention that India has alleged that this is sufficient proof of the intended damage of the target and a cover up by Pakistan. --Brhamos (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

JeM as belligerent

JeM is on Pakistan's side. Why put it in the middle? Is this a joke? It's not a triangular war. It is the only Misplaced Pages page on conflict shown in this bizarre way. Put JeM on Pakistan's side. It is obvious that JeM operates without impunity in Pakistan. JeM is written on signboards all across Pakistan. Its leader Masood Azhar roams freely in Pakistan. Pakistan Foreign Minister confirms that himself and he knows his health status too. Misplaced Pages is not an eyewash. Put the truth here. --Trickipaedia (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why no PAF attack the next day in Aftermath?

Seriously, why is Pakistan's retaliatory air strikes done the next day ommitted? It is significant.--Trickipaedia (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Whilst the main article is 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, where it's covered in details, we need to say something about that over here. ∯WBG 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bombs used are smart bombs, kill everyone inside building but does not create any damage to the near by buildings

SPICE 2000 bombs just go inside the building using small opening and create shockwaves to kill everyone inside instantly, no major damage to the nearby buildings. Please add the details from the below references. Ref:

• SPICE-2000 - How it works?
• Three ways India confirmed that the hits on Balakot were successful - shared for the first time
• Everything You Need to Know About The SPICE-2000 Smart Bombs Used by The IAF in Balakot Strikes: Watch Video
• https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/spice-2000-here-is-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-super-precision-missile-system-used-in-the-iaf-strike-on-pakistans-terror-bases

--Knowshare1 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WOW! It's like magic! --McSly (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian Media

So called "sting operations" by Indian media outlets, which have already proven themselves to be incredibly biased during the coverage of the conflict and who's findings can't even be corresponded by neutral outlets, shouldn't be mentioned under "Media Assessment". 39.33.195.175 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Would you be ok if a new subheading stating "Indian Media" is created below the section Media ? --DBigXrayᗙ 04:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Until the claims can be independently verified by a neutral media outlet, I don't really see why it even deserves a mention. Otherwise, we might as well start adding in "300-500 killed in Balakot", "PM Imran Khan begging for talks with India" and so on, and then reference an Indian outlet to prove it 39.33.216.150 (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Will you answer the question which was asked above? Orientls (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already answered it. Until the information can be independently verified by a neutral outlet or the claim comes directly from the Indian Gov (in which case it should be correctly stated to be a claim), there's absolutely no need to mention it. 39.33.216.150 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

IP user 39.33.216.150 see my response in the section below. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sting Operation

We all are well known of the fact that Indian media has been badly exposed and criticized for the fake propaganda and misinformation, and reporting on this Indo-Pak standoff. why we being so ignorant to add India today site in much hyped Page "2019 Balakot Airstrike" do we forget of how they covered these events like "Imran khan begged and surrendered, Pakistan har geya(Pakistan lost), Abhinandan the hero teach lesson to the Pakistan and all this kind of stuff, why not add those? it is so funny and bias to add that so called "Sting operation" it is so idiotic for all of us believe in or add it in the Balakot Page. who could believe India today? After they showed the tape of terrorists taking with each other like seriously? And Who could believe that one country did a sting operation in other country's military base? We should be more neutral than this stuff, it is so staggering and impossible. Please remove that operation from Media assessment, it is not to being biased, only if it was picked or reported by any good neutral site, it barely have 2/2 likes/dislikes on that link. How it come there it is itself funny. Qasee1230 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I'm afraid the India Today sting is not reliable information. Given the general bias in the Indian media around this issue, it is best to stick to non-Indian, non-Pakstani, neutral Western sources. Please remove this information. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving attention to my point, agreed what you said. Qasee1230 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler thanks for the ping. I respect your opinions in general. Can you please elaborate why this independent investigative journalism that is sufficiently attributed about its source needs to be removed from the article ? I understand the general mistrust in using unnamed India and Pakistani government "sources" and why we are avoiding them, but the case is different here. India today, here is not parroting a government propaganda piece or citing unnamed sources for it. The report has also been cited by other media houses like Jagran as well. This is also needed to provide a much needed balance to the article. The countries clearly have conflicting claims over the incident and there is no reason to give undue weight to one countries version over the other. This is an independent report and should be retained with due attributions.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Khan, Jamshed; Kumar, Ankit; Pathak, Sushant (12 March 2019). "Pakistan claims on Balakot and F-16 nailed on tape". India Today. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
2. "Unravelling Balakot: Clearing the fog that shrouds India's air strike on Pakistan". dailyo.in. 15 March 2019.
3. "वारदात: पाकिस्तान का स्टिंग ऑपरेशन Vardaat: Pakistan's sting Operation - Vardaat AajTak". aajtak.intoday.in (in Hindi). 12 March 2019.
4. "Balakot Air Strike : 32 दिन बाद सुबूत मिटा पाकिस्‍तान ने मीडिया को दिखाया कैंप". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). 30 March 2019. Retrieved 2 April 2019.

I respect you too for giving precious time on this talk, I guess we have given very specific reason why It is not right to use India today/Indian media claims under media assessment especially when we need neutral claims indeed. I don't see any Pakistani claim under reaction, satellite assessment or even though under damage where it needs to be used neutral claims, so please remove that sting operation it is not right to put that in very much professional page "2019 Balakot Airstrike." Best Regards. Qasee1230 (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And Also these all are Indian cites obviously they will go with Indian side, the wire, the quint and altnews which are fact sites did not even i guess noticed that sting operation, the cites which notices every article/news from any Indian cites. Only if it was picked by any neutral international credible source/cite it would have been no issue but it merely have 3/3 likes/dislikes and none Indian believable source also picked that sting operation like, The hindu, hindustantimes and tribune. Isn't it wrong and injustice with Pakistani claim if we see there are no claims of them in satellite assessments, reaction, least are under damage.To me if any Pakistani cite would have did the same kind of sting operation i would have still waiting for neutral source and international source to verify it. Best Regards Qasee1230 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And these are not independent, this is main issue, if these were no one would had any problem. There are thousands of thousands of article by the same cites which are totally so biased toward Pakistan and also in this standoff, then i guess we shouldn't hesitate to call them non-neutral cites. Qasee1230 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Thanks for your kind words. I'm afraid the India Today "sting operation" does not sound credible, neither is the language of patriotic yellow journalism in which the article engages. Printing random phone numbers with the last four digits blanked (10,000 phones) is not credible. The wildly exaggerated inferences in the article fly in the face of WP policy on WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You are welcome to ask at a larger forum such as WT:INDIA or the Village Pump and we might all gain some more input, and hopefully, insight. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

India Today is the largest Indian weekly magazine with an established track record. The two subsidiaries Mail Today (a daily newspaper, mostly electronic) and India Today TV do not have the same quality. The current citation is to Mail Today. If the weekly magazine has reported on this sting operation, I would be ok to mention it.

DBigXray, the attribution to India Today needs to be explicit, something along the lines of "India Today reported the results of a sting operation carried out by the India Today TV...". There should be no terms like "revealed", which suggest bias in Misplaced Pages's voice.

Suggest changing the section title "Media assessments" to "Media reports". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have made 3 modifications based on your suggestion and also copy edited "revealed" to "It reported that". Fowler I am sure you are aware about the reliability of India today group (which Qasee does not seem to be). The phone numbers have been redacted for obvious privacy reasons. It is naive to expect the journos to reveal the complete phone number. We clearly have a difference of opinion here. IMHO, There is nothing in this report that proves it is yellow journalism, you may call it "not credible" but it appears credible enough to me to be reported be included in the article with proper attributions. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have edited it for POV. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not aware of the reliability India Today. It is a magazine that in this time of newly pliant Indian media is making up stories. Has the story been independently reported in the Hindu or Indian Express let alone the major western newspapers. I suggest that you take it to the Village Pump and elicit the opinion of the larger WP community. I'm pretty sure I know sophomoric patriotic language when I see it, littered as it is in the story. And really, 321-222-**** is proof? What major western newspaper publishes such nonsense? Sorry to be blunt, but there is a limit to such promotion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, the citation is still to a Mail Today story. See that in the URL: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/pakistan-claims-on-balakot-and-f-16-nailed-on-tape-1475806-2019-03-12. I have searched in the Nexis database I have access to, and I don't find anything published in India Today about this sting operation. So, I am removing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Italian journalist's report on casualties

@Fowler&fowler: Is this source good enough? https://news.yahoo.com/nearly-170-jem-members-were-135258577.html Dagana4 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not. If you can find a critical number (i.e more than just one or two) of the major third-party (i.e. neither from India nor Pakistan) sources, such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Independent, Reuters, Agence France Presse, TIME, Newsweek, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Australian Broadcasting Company, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and so forth, fine; otherwise you are wasting our time. It is now 10 weeks after the airstrike. The Indian media, and politicians in India, and only those two groups of talking heads, are at this point obsessed with Balakot. It is now a non issue in the West and even in Pakistan. As far as the third-party media is concerned, their general view is that there is no firm evidence that India accomplished anything of consequence in Balakot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What a list of clowns you have given. They are the least trustworthy news sites of the century. You also sound like Pakistani. I need someone elses opinions also on this. Dagana4 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is best not to spout innuendo when dealing with me; this is not a chat group. As I have said elsewhere, "The position of the Delhi bureau chief of the New York Times is one of the prized postings of American journalism, attracting the best and the brightest, many would-be executive editors and Pulitzer prize winners, among which, off the top of my head, I can count A. M. Rosenthal (in the 50s), later executive editor; Joseph Lelyveld (EE and Pulitzer), Sydney Schanberg (Pulitzer), Serge Schmeman (Pulitzer), Barry Bearak (Pulitzer), Ellen Barry (Pulitzer) and the current, Jeffrey Gettleman (Pulitzer). Having had some dealing with the newspaper, I can say without hesitation their standards of vetting a story are extremely high, probably the most rigorous of any newspaper anywhere." There is nothing in South Asian journalism, Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladesh's, that remotely rises to these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica on the New York Times, "The New York Times, morning daily newspaper published in New York City, long the newspaper of record in the United States and one of the world’s great newspapers. Its strength is in its editorial excellence;"See here. Contrast that with Britannica on the Times of India: "The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of India’s most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government." (See here). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

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

Suggested: add Al Jazeera report to Media Coverage section, from source: "https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/indian-air-raid-site-casualties-mysterious-madrassa-190227183058957.html" as "A report by Al Jazeera English two days after the strike noted discrepancies in the official Pakistani and Indian statements concerning the incident." Reason: First report by an international news organisation from the site. Changez (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The proposed text states that "Al Jazeera English two days after the strike noted discrepancies in the official Pakistani and Indian statements" but does not elaborate upon what those discrepancies were according to Al Jazeera. If this claim were approved it would only tell part of the story, and would require the reader to go to the Al Jazeera site to learn more - which is not recommended as a way to impart information in articles, per MOS:DONTTEASE.  Spintendo  07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2019 Indian Controversial Surgical Strikes

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

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

change "Casualties and losses from unknown to 160-170" Utkpar123 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

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

] to 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes Soul997 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 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. DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

an

 Done Link in the info box has been corrected. --McSly (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead fixation

I understand the compulsions of WP:Lead fixation, but may I request that editors not directly edit the lead without talk page discussion and consensus? The very recent edits are a case in point. One sentence is added on a whim, a paragraph is removed on another whim, even though the last paragraphs says "The airstrikes," and something or other is added to the aftermath. The lead has been stable for a year and a half. I'm on vacation, but I request that much discussion and consensus precede any edits to the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven removed a paragraph from the lead here regarding a retaliation strike made the next day after the initial raid, mentioning MOS:LEDE. I restored it, but moved it to the aftermath section (muffing the spelling). Fowler&fowler Restored it back to the lead. Per MOS:LEDE: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. As the retaliation strike is not mentioned in the body of the article, it should not be in the lead. Plain and simple. Misplaced Pages:Lead dos and don'ts makes it clear. At this point we should move any information in the lead not in the body down to the appropriate section and then also decide what should remain in the lead. MOS:LEADLENGTH gives guidance on lead length. I found about 17k readable text in this article, so we should have at most 3 paragraphs. We currently have 7 paragraphs and people keep trying to add more. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that in a large number of South Asia related articles which have been stuck in edit warring, or otherwise in various forms of POV promotion, the lead is edited for NPOV, with the expectation that if and when the rest of the article has attained an NPOV and reliable state, it can be summarized to rewrite the lead or to add nuances as needed. This has been the precedent followed in the dozens of articles starting with the flagship article, the FA India, the oldest country FA on Misplaced Pages (when it had degenerated in 2006–7) and down to the much more recent 2020 Delhi riots. They are the result of longstanding and hard-won consensus on article talk pages and WT:INDIA, and supported by dozens administrators going back to Nichalp, arb and admin, who lead the drive for more South-Asia-related content on WP. MOS has been brought up many times before in dozens of such articles. The precedent has held. Whatever changes are being proposed need to be discussed in the talk page and a consensus achieved. I'm on vacation, so this is all I can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the first paragraph is to just summarize what happen. Perhaps:

The 2019 Balakot airstrike was conducted by India in the early morning hours of 26 February when Indian warplanes crossed the de facto border in the disputed region of Kashmir, and dropped bombs in the vicinity of the town of Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. The next day Pakistan retaliated shooting down an Indian warplane and taking the pilot prisoner who was later returned. The airstrikes were the first time since the India-Pakistan war of 1971 that warplanes of either country crossed the Line of Control and also since both states have become nuclear powers.

The second paragraph should summarize the claims and counter claims and evidence. The third paragraph should summarize the reactions now lacking in the lead. We will only need citations that cover what is said in the lead, Not the 20 citations plus one note currently in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In most any other article I would have no difficulty agreeing, but I'm sorry but I disagree here. Your version plays into the India-POV, which would very much like the lead paragraph to give the impression without attended deconstruction that an airstrike took place. The India-POV would like the "fact of the airstrike" to be decoupled with its disambiguation. We in Misplaced Pages do not know exactly what happened, but we can report what and in what order the major international news outlets (with a presence in South Asia) broke the story. Events unfolded in a certain sequence and that sequence is important, for it is the best we can do in maintaining the NPOV text of the lead.

The sequence is: Pakistan announced in the morning of February 26, 2019 that Indian warplanes entered sovereign Pakistani territory (not the Pakistani administered portion of the disputed region of Kashmir, but the Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkwa); they reported that Pakistani fighter jets scrambled to intercept them, forcing the Indians to turn back, that the Indians dropped their payload before they had reached the target's range, the bombs falling in a field in a remote hilltop, knocking down some trees, pictures of which were immediately put on the official Pakistani twitter site. The acknowledgement from India was not immediately forthcoming; later the Indians stated that the airstrike was a preemptive one for offsetting a terrorist threat; soon claims of 300 terrorists being taken out were made. The next day, the Pakistanis flew into India and dropped bombs in an uninhabited area. They were challenged by Indian jets. A dogfight ensued in which an Indian pilot was shot down, bailing out in Pakistani territory, where he was captured. When the news of the Indian pilot's capture was flashed, Indians announced that they had shot down a Pakistani warplane. Pakistan denied that it had lost any planes. Later, India announced that an Indian helicopter had crashed because of engine trouble and six Indian military men were killed. In October 2019, the Indians announced that the helicopter lost on February 27 had been brought down by friendly fire.

There is a reason that only "third-party" international sources are allowed in the lead. It is that left to their own devices the news media of the combatants will create an echo chamber in which you will hear nothing. In controversial South Asia related articles, we get around these issues by not only using best international sources in the lead, but also avoiding those of countries that might be seen as taking sides (Arab news, China, Russia, Bangladesh, are therefore all avoided, as well as Indian and Pakistani outlets; that is what third-party means). MOS is written for uncomplicated articles. Here we have so much POV, and so aggressive, that Misplaced Pages editors have been named and criticized in the news media. One, who was a early contributor to this page, was outed by the Indian media over another issue and had to leave WP in March 2020.

As international sources will sometimes not have the fine-scale details of a story, they can't always be used exclusively to write the main body of the article, but they are ideal for the lead. The main body is written with them as the overall NPOV guide and the local reports for the needed details. That, unfortunately, has not happened in the main body of this article. So relentless is the POV promotion. This is the reason why the stress on the time sequence, the 20 citations, the five instead of three paragraphs are important. You do away with the overwhelming citations, the careful grouping of some sentences in one paragraph and some in another, the POV specialists will step in, and there is simply not enough editor-power on WP to counter them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede not only should just summarise the article, but only the important parts. Whilst the retaliation was a consequence it was not part of the incident. But if we must have it in the lede the above seem to best way.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

"2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes" Needs to be linked to aftermath as well has a write up on it. This was a direct response the very next day and it seems be bias by omission to not include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/2019_Jammu_and_Kashmir_airstrikes

Proposed merge of 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes into 2019 Balakot airstrike#Aftermath

There is no need for a separate article for this. Much of the content is overlapping with the 2019 Balakot airstrike article and connecting pages. To give this significance and context, it should be merged into 2019 Balakot airstrike. Also trivial and overlapping matters can then be removed easily. LOC deaths and firing take place often, even if this was using fighter aircraft, notability is questionable. If someone says what about balakot as a standalone... that is the whole point, we are merging both articles. Change the name of the article to accommodate both events. DTM (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The 2019 Balakot airstrike is the page that is watched by senior editors and assiduously maintained in an NPOV manner by restricting the citations in the lead to international third-party newspapers. There is another page 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes that is also maintained in an NPOV fashion with similar restrictions. These pages have been around for a year and a half. No one has paid any attention to this other page; most are not aware of its existence. You may request to have it deleted, or you may have it redirected to the 2019 border skirmishes page. But the title of this (2019 Balakot airstrike) page cannot be changed. If anyone wants to edit this page, they will need to cite their edits to third-party international sources, and since the phrasing etc have been in place (word for word) for 18 months, the significant changes will need to be discussed on the talk page first. . As for notability, the name "Balakot airstrike" is more notable than "Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes" by a ratio of 108,000 to 2,140 or 50 to 1. When the ratio is so stark, the more notable page name cannot be changed, nor its scope be altered significantly, for it would be both POV and UNDUE Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I request for deletion even while this merge proposal is open? DTM (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the rules. You'll have to ask the deletion people. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bad idea. DiplomatTesterMan, Both the strikes were done on separate days and were separate events, even if they fall into the same chain of events. Neither a merge nor deletion for either or both the pages is necessary. The Balakot strike was the precipitating event, while the J&K strike was the Pakistani response which resulted in the capture of Abhinandan Varthaman. Mar4d (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, I didn't realize that. So, yes, we could let both remain. So this is not really a content fork issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: the two articles were two separate operations carried out by opposing sides. Each event is notable individually.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bless sins. Ytpks896 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger of combatant 2 and combatant 3

The mentioned combatants 2 and 3 in the infobox should be merged. Jaish-e-Mohammad is a clear proxy of Pakistan and receives active support from them. It doesn't make sense to add JeM as a third party in this conflict. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read the archives. There is no consensus in the third-party international sources we are using that the Jaish was a combatant in the airstrike. This has been a longstanding consensus vetted rigorously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

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

"At least 300 killed as per Pakistan diplomat Agha Hilaly."

Can someone remove this false information from the infobox? The source for the claim itself labels it as such:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/over-300-terrorists-killed-by-india-balakot-airstrikes-claims-former-pakistani-diplomat-1757490-2021-01-09

Reports of a former Pakistani diplomat having claimed that India killed 300 terrorists in the Balakot airstrikes that took place on February 26, 2019, have been found to be false.

The statement falsely attributed to diplomat Agha Hilaly was carried by several news organisation, including India Today, and was based on an input by news agency ANI...

However, it was later found that the video was misattributed and the quote was actually a snippet of a larger quote made by former diplomat Zafar Hilaly in a television debate. SpicyBiryani (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources saying this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless I've mis-read your question, there are multiple sources regarding this in the article itself - in the sub-section titled 'media reports' - including links to news sources that retracted their original reports on the quotes attributed to Hilely. See footnotes 94 to 100. I'm also repasting some of the sources here: Altnews Fact-Check, The Wire story on the misreporting, Times of India corrigendum on original report, News18 Fact check on original report, NDTV report on the whole thing. - Naushervan (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Then we should say "however this was misatributed and was in fact said by".Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a false statement, an edited part of a sentence saying the exact opposite, and was also mis-attributed.Please do take a look at the sources that you requested, and the current edits explaining the issue in the article. It would not help if we confounded the issue further. - Naushervan (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• @SpicyBiryani: Thanks for pointing out. I have edited out the figure. Not sure why it was there in the infobox to begin with, but as the sources above make pretty obvious, it was a misattribution. Feel free to discuss the instances of erroneous reporting/misattributions in the article body if they are deemed notable. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring about crossing the international border

Rao Ravindra There is a good reason for the phrasing in the lead. There is no firm evidence that the Indian planes did cross the international border. The Pakistani reports (supported by international analyses) are that the Indian planes were intercepted while they were still in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and they dropped their payload (of long-range programmable bombs) right there as they scrambled to return to India.

You should consider that this phrasing has been in place for two years, and the editors that maintain this page are experienced and competent editors. If it had been an obvious flaw of fact or POV, they would have seen and corrected it. It is best to post your proposed edits on the talk page first and gain consensus for them. Making a bold edit once is fine, but edit-warring, after it has been reverted, is not. Please read WP:BRD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Result section in Info Box has spelling and Grammatical errors.

The Result Section in Info box has Grammatical errors.

Care to say what they are?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I do not know why you are supporting such a poor lead composed of one-line paragraphs.

Anyways, my only point is that the aspect of India failing to hit any targets of significance—as ascertained by unconflicted independent sources—needs to go higher up. It is far important to a reader than a detailed rehash of the theater. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Apologies. Your point is a good one. I misunderstood what you had done. Didn't see shuffling, only the combining. A self-revert by me awaits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Result

There is consensus among neutral sources that India hit no targets of significance - it's even in the lead. The result in the infobox should reflect this, instead of stating each country's claims. It's already like this for the "27 February 2019" section, where only the MiG-21 and Mi-17's losses - which are agreed upon by neutral sources - are mentioned, instead of each country's claims of Su-30s and F-16s going down. Cipher21 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I am less sure it is that clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See refs 9-14, 55-60, 64, and 72-80 in the article. It's safe to say that neutral sources agree on this. The article itself states this - Neutral sources have asserted that the munitions dropped by Indian warplanes appeared to have hit several trees in a wooded area but caused no other damage, nor any casualties in the area where the attack took place. The result section in the infobox should be used for facts agreed upon be neutral sources, not claims made by each country. Cipher21 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is almost three years now. That means very likely scholarly books (WP's first choice in times of doubt) will have been published. Please give me some time and I'll see what they have to say. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Several books and book chapters have appeared in the interim. I have quoted from them liberally in the citations. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I did a small fix to the recent addition here, per NPOV. The Foreign Policy report, which depended on 2 unnamed officials has been already discussed earlier and rejected by other reliable sources.

I don't think that friendly fire deserves a mention on lead or infobox. See Cuban Missile Crisis#Human casualties. Only those casualties that have been caused by the opposing side are mentioned on Infobox. Aman Kumar Goel 06:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Print, an Indian on-line newspaper is not a third-party source, the kind to which we are restricting the lead's attributions. Nonetheless, I have removed that sentence as it does not seem to be replicated in the third-party scholarly sources published since. As for friendly fire deaths, the Cuban Missile Crisis is not the shining benchmark (all those plane crashes were not caused by friendly fire in any case). A better example is Gulf war where non-hostile casualties are very much mentioned. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

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

The result in infoxbox should be changed and the neutral pov should be added there (as it's in the article) rather than claims of each country. Johny.k741 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem is I am unsure there is a NPOV we can give, as I am unsure that neutral sources are clear cut as to the outcome.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources mentioned in the article all seem to agree that India did miss its targets--Johny.k741 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 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. @Johny.k741: Your edit request was not changed, so please do not reopen the request without changing your request because it is not in the desired format. Please say which parts of the infobox need to be changed and what they need to be changed to before reopening the request and adding it to the backlog of extended-confirmed-protected edit requests. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

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

kindly Change the line "The 2019 Balakot airstrike was a bombing raid conducted by Indian warplanes on February 26, 2019, in Balakot, Pakistan against an alleged terrorist training camp."

to

"As per the Indian govt officials, the Indian Air Force on February 26, 2019 targeted the Balakot-based Jaish-e-Mohammad(JeM) terror camp in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan using Israel's SPICE bombs. the Air Force sent its package of 12 Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft to attack the Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist camp in Balakot on February 26, it code-named it 'Operation Bandar (Monkey)', to maintain secrecy. Two of the three intended targets, including the main training centre of the JeM, were conclusively hit, high-resolution images procured by India from its own satellites as well as those of friendly nations show.

As per the Pakistani govt officials :there were no such target, and IAF dropped its payload on empty ground destroying only some trees."

source : https://theprint.in/defence/five-iaf-spice-2000-bombs-hit-jem-camps-in-balakot-govt-satellite-images-show/207807/ . https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/intelligence-based-counter-terror-strike-by-iaf-targetted-300-terrorists20190226161400/. Raheja88 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is why we say alleged.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

result

@Fowler&fowler: I tagged u because you seem to be the most active one on this article I want to make a request that the article & sources mentioned clearly say that India miss its targets so please add it to the infobox result as well instead of stating each country's claims.Johny.k741 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, probably, three years on, no one seriously believes the Indian claim, and there several new sources (one published last month) that consider both Indian claims (destroying the terrorist academy or camp, and the F-16) to have been debunked. So, I wouldn't be averse to the infobox cautiously saying:

• "XYZ (Indian claim).(cited to various sources) Considered unreliable. "(cited to newer sources and the satellite data).
• X'Y'Z' (Pakistani claim).(cited to various sources).
• XYZ about the F-16 (Indian claim)(cited to various sources) Considered inaccurate.(cited to the newer sources).

Slatersteven here would the crucial vote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, given that it is the anniversary of the strike, I wouldn't mess with the infobox just yet. Perhaps wait for a few weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: so when will u update it?103.244.173.68 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What are the newest evaluations? Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

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

The Indian warplanes destroyed 3 terrorist camps funded by Pakistan. One pilot was captured by Pakistani army and was served well by the army officials. The pilot was released as per international policy of not keeping war refugee as per QUAD 2409:4060:2E12:D7EF:70F0:2D96:3820:898D (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

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

This article is not neutral and cites various media reports that traditionally have an anti-India bias. The theories that this page claims have been debunked have actually not been debunked and there is still a discussion as to what actually happened during the Balakot strikes. Please cite neutral sources to make this page more aligned with the actual facts rather than a one-sided misinformation gimmick. 106.213.55.136 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

FoxtAl's "unconstructive edits"

@Hemantha: List out edits you find as "unconstructive" here. I'll give reason for each and every one of it. Thanks—FoxtAl (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to justify why a quote from news-y report from TV18, which doesn't even have a by-line, needs to be added here. On the other edits, your opinion of whether something is political is irrelevant; the sentence on using it for electoral gains is well sourced. If you have issues, take it to WP:RSN. I've reworded the sentence on media reportage of six deaths. CN tags were unnecessary, as the ref following is the relevant Al Jazeera article. The edit saying India acknowledged friendly fire in February is pure vandalism. Hemantha (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the issues in your first set of edits were due to conflicting ref names which I've fixed now. I have also restored one of your edits, which expanded the NYT quote. Hemantha (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for edits

• Casualty number of airmen six or seven - - its six not seven, source , , , , - do you need more sources?
• "their deaths remaining unreported in the Indian media for long afterwards." - The Hindu national daily reported this incident on 27 February 2019 - - The Hindu is an Indian newspaper right? The incident was happened on 26 or 27 February 2019, so is it "long afterwards"? - my edit summary clearly stated the reason and attached the link with it - "Removed this statement "death of airmen remained unreported in Indian Media" which is in fact wrong, attaching news about the incident (27 feb 2019) - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/iaf-jet-crashes-in-budgam-bodies-found-police/article26383374.ece "

And by this edit - you're intentionally trying to restore factual errors. —FoxtAl (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Regarding this edit - ] - what should newpapers do other than reporting?? Do you expect them to mourn or hold prayer?!

• What is the reason for quoting only half of the actual quote - are you afraid that world will know the truth?? What is the reason for publishing only half of the quote while its other half is also relevant??
• And in this edit - apart form making factual errors intentionally, you have removed tag on this statement -"The local hospital officials and residents asserted that they did not come across any casualty or wounded people" - does it have a citation to backup the claim? have you referred adjacent citations? What prompted you to restore a plain WP:NOR violation??
• In the same edit you have removed quote "The dead, they said, included several individuals who had earlier served in Pakistan's military. A former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) officer known locally as "Colonel Salim" was killed in the bombing. Mufti Moeen, a Jaish-e-Muhammad instructor from Peshawar, and improvised explosive device-fabrication expert Usman Ghani were also killed in the bombing. The largest single cluster of fatalities, the eyewitnesses said, were twelve Jaish-e-Muhammad recruits receiving fidayeen training." - what is the reason for that? You wish only one side of the story should be added to the Misplaced Pages? Or You have no respect for WP:NEUTRAL policy of Wiki?? —FoxtAl (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Role western media

Editor's should also expose how western media always come in support of pakistan when it comes to India. Western hypocrisy on terrorism must be widely recognised and their biased attitude towards India must be widely busted. Everything happens in war and that day pakistan had very cleverly cleared everything just to whitewash everyone of nothing happened and western media responded in a way they wanted them to respond. 300 terrorists killed and we are proud of it,! N4netra (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2023

Bold text

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

Kittabitta (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you want in bold text? Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They almost certainly hit the bold text button in the editor after trying to edit the article and being put into the edit request workflow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We still need to know what they want us to do. 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox result, 26 February

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall we replace the Indian and Pakistani claims in the first bullet point of the result infobox parameter with the text "Indian bombing raid conducted within Pakistani territory, no consequential targets hit"? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue to list Indian and Pakistani claims there, when we have independent assessments in the body. "Bombing raid conduct within Pakistani territory, no targets of consequence hit" would seem appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer: we have text written in Misplaced Pages's voice based on reliable third-party sources; there is no need to use the inherently biased claims from either government any longer. I see someone has added an RfC template, but my initial framing was designed for that, so I'm refactoring. No substantive change has been made, so I don't believe a mass ping is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily brusque response, Slatersteven; I'm not talking about adding content, I'm talking about reflecting the article text in the infobox. There are three sources following the second sentence of the article, and several more in the "satellite data assessments" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Our text is not that clear cut. Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How so? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious support. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This should have been done long before. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:F80F:9E7:C323:8BC8 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• I'm looking at the Template:Infobox military conflict doc and it asks to use one of the two standard terms. If not it says to link it to an aftermath-like section. Do we want to deviate from that? Either way, yes as we have reliable independent sources which are to be preferred over either party claims — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  A fair point, DaxServer, but the current text is also a problem in that respect. I suppose if we are to follow the template documentation, "inconclusive" is the only appropriate option, but I'd rather see the detail used. If we include a link to the "Damage" section, I think we're doing okay as far as the documentation is concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Inconclusive" is not accurate here. India's stated objective was to destroy a terrorist camp, and it clearly failed to do so according to neutral sources. H&K G3A3 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you be specific in what you would like changed i.e. what text you would like to see added or removed (or am I missing something?), Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer: This RFC is about the result in the infobox 2400:ADC1:477:8500:8028:9408:23E5:881F (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I did get that but the the suggested text "Indian bombing raid conducted within Pakistani territory, no consequential targets hit" has only "no consequential targets hit" to say about the result. Hardly worth saying? The current text has nothing much to do with the result of the raid and describes peripheral events. I'd suggest it would be best omitted. With nothing much else to say about the result perhaps 'Result' is best omitted altogether? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not opposed to dumping the result parameter altogether, but it seems odd to omit the events of the 26th and keep those of the 27th. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We could trim it down to "No targets of consequence damaged" or simply "Indian failure"H&K G3A3 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

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

Add the number jaish e mohmmed terrorist killed in this incident. Which is around 300-400 223.178.209.51 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

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

Per the above discussion, let's change the infobox result to "Indian failure - no targets of consequence damaged" since there is consensus among neutral sources and editors that India failed to hit any targets of significance. H&K G3A3 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

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

These are flase information influnce by us and pakistan. 2400:80C0:3001:334D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You do need to say what change you went made. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We need to know what information is false in the article specifically, how it is false, and what exactly should happen to the relevant text. —Sirdog (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

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

Let's change the result to Indian failure or no targets of consequence hit, there's consensus for it in the article, the sources, and the talk page. Solblaze (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: however, I will ping the editor who started the RfC. @Vanamonde93: could you please have a look at this request? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The result was changed...I'm not sure what's being asked for here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I'm a bit sleep deprived nowadays. Solblaze (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Horribly Pro-Pakistan.

in the first paragraphs only, the writer is making claims based on purely incorrect, or straight up Pakistani claims. not just the fact the F-16 was shot down, but also, the satellite imaging used here to "prove" that it was unsuccessful speaks volumes of how unprofessional this article is. the SPICE 2000 bombs are not for collateral damage, thy pierce in the structure and then explode. moreover the image taken are a few days after the actual strike, which also corresponds to how they didn't let anyone in that area for more than a month. Yet the user writer doesn't mention this fact and simply makes claims on the basis of incomplete, or inaccurate sources. The F-16 was indeed shot down, heck their are images of broken engine parts but that is also not taken in account. Seeing how the history of this article is so Anti-India, I don't think any Indian claims will be shown as real claims like its done with Pakistani claims. alas, I just wrote this to inform how terribly incorrect, and biased this article is Experience31 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, find one not Indian RS that backs any of this up. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

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

The Indian intelligence agency is called 'R&AW' (research and analysis wing), not 'RAW'. Source: Neel st (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the acronym entirely as we never use it again, makes more sense to just write Research and Analysis Wing Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References

1. "Research and Analysis Wing", Misplaced Pages, 2023-08-30, retrieved 2023-08-31

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

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

Requesting grammatical corrections in two sentences

1. In the lead, change "since both states have become" to "since both states became" in the line "The airstrikes were the first time since the India-Pakistan war of 1971 that warplanes of either country crossed the Line of Control and also since both states have become nuclear powers."
2. In the section Media reports, change "Trump administration wants to" to "Trump administration wanted to" in the line "...would be a clear violation of Congress approved terms for selling the fighters as it would trigger formal procedures to reprimand Islamabad when Trump administration wants to repair bilateral diplomatic relations." Lord Clayton7 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done There's plenty more improvements that can be made, but I'll save that for later. Deauthorized. 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Issues with links

I spotted that one of the links was red meaning that it was supposed to be linked an article that either got deleted or never existed. It is "European space imaging" Can somebody fix that? I'm new to wikipedia so i don't know how edit something that is protected. Mechanizedboi (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"F-16 claim shown to be false" in lead

The present version of lead is clearly not in accordance with the WP:NPOV. Indian claim of downing an F-16 should be shown as "disputed" rather than "false". The present reference used is an American journal. American sources can't be considered very reliable here. Downing of an American jet is likely to adversely affect the American market. Thats the reason American media made a false claim of aircraft count by US authorities. So, I am changing this line to a more neutral one. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

How can American sources be considered unreliable ? your conspiracy theories are a terrible excuse to make your biased edit when you are using highly dubious Indian sources which are known to be mostly propaganda? A tabloid newspaper.....your edit is filled with pov and needs to be reverted no consensus what so ever. Mrdabalina (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

NO issue with that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering Indian media was caught out countless times trying to push lies and disinformation during this strike we should only use Non-South Asian sources and unfortunately non of the reliable neutral sources support Indias claim not even slightly after all the above user is now calling these sources as "unreliable" and is espousing conspiracy theories as to why neutral sources do not back Indian claims. Mrdabalina (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

At most, F-16 downing can be termed "disputed". Calling it false citing some American journal is pov pushing.

@Mrdabalina: We aren't discussing Balakot strike here but rather the F-16 downing. There is hardly any contradiction between the Indian Express source added by me and international media. International media too covered the Indian official claims like this, this and this. --Yoonadue (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted the reinstatement of this. The scholarly source used at the moment says unequivocally that the Indian claim was debunked. The sources offered here only report the Indian claim, and do not support or reject it; as such they don't challenge the scholarly source at all. Even thedrive.com only states India produced evidence of the use of a certain missile, and explicitly says there is no evidence of an F-16 being shot down. The Indian claim is well-documented in this article. To change our present narrative, we need either independent support for the Indian claim, or independent statements that the claim is genuinely in dispute, that substantially post-date the incident being discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Since when did our platform become dependent on a single source? We have no idea on what basis did the writer reach the conclusion that IAF didn't shoot down an F-16. May be he took these US media reports out of proportion. The same reports were dismissed by the Pentagon. As I said before, we can't put one-sided narratives citing some American journal. American sources can't be taken as independent as there is always a suspicion of bias. Not only India and Pakistan were trying to save face, but the Americans were also found to be doing the same as its F-16's reputation was at stake. Considering the dubious behavior of Pakistan during the episode, as noted in foreign media here and here, I don't think the present version of lead is justified. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're free to base your own opinion on that sort of analysis, but all of it is speculative, and does not directly challenge our content or the source we are using for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are doing a great mistake by treating American sources as independent ones. Its clear we have two parties. One party is India which claims an F-16 was shot while the other party includes Pakistan (govt) and US (non-state actors). Even though US authorities distanced itself from controversy, some ultra-nationalists from within the section of media and "scholars" came forward to defend the made-in-US aircraft. I find no merit in controversial Christine Fair's statement against Indian claim, American media's fake reports over F-16 count, the American gentleman's journal conclusively saying that IAF lied or The Drive article which says that there is zero evidence from Indian side to prove that an F-16 was lost (despite knowing that IAF had released radar images in media to reiterate its claim). To me, all these are American patriots who don't want the world to believe that its F-16 was shot down by a Mig-21. American sources are being treated as independent despite a strong link between US and F-16 while the The Print which is regarded as most reliable in India, is being ignored for being "Indian" (detailed reports from The Print to debunk Pakistani denial- 1, 2).

If at all neutrality exists on this platform, then the language in the lead should be fixed; else, the world would take it as another case of American hegemony. Afterall, Misplaced Pages is based in the US! --Yoonadue (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We tend to give less weight to media sources from countries that are party to a conflict; a journal article from a US author is a different matter entirely. I find that argument unpersuasive, and at the moment it clearly doesn't have consensus. I'm stepping away from this argument; you will need considerably more support before making any change. Vanamonde (Talk) Vanamonde (Talk) 13:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

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

Non consensus to change the lead made by: using a highly unreliable Indian express newspaper as evidence even though all the neutral sources back up the fact that it was false claims made by the Indian state to downplay the actual downing of their fighter jet needs to be reverted as its a long standing edit over 3 years now and this user comes suddenly and unilaterally changes without consesus. Mrdabalina (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Mrdabalina (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Broken section link behind "open source satellites" in the lead

This edit request by an editor with a partial block from editing this page has now been answered.

Original heading: "Request Regarding a Link in Article"; copied from User talk:ToBeFree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

While exploring the Misplaced Pages article on 2019 Balakot airstrike, I noticed a link to Open source satellites. However, upon reviewing the Satellite article, I couldn't locate any specific section related to "Open source satellites." If it's not too much trouble, could you kindly check and, if necessary, update the link for accuracy? King Ayan Das (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi King Ayan Das, thanks for asking. The link itself seems to be okay; the problem could be fixed by describing open source satellites in a new section of the target article. However, it may be reasonable to replace ] by Open source ]s for now. I'll copy this request to the article's talk page, with {{edit partially-blocked}} above to request independent review. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Hi! Instead of using ] or Open source ]s, how about linking to Satellite_imagery#Public_domain? It seems like the latter section provides the best MOS:LINKCLARITY to the topic.

Thanks!

@User:ToBeFree @User:King Ayan Das Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Staraction – in this case, perhaps the redirect page named Open source satellites should be changed as well. Sounds good to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 12:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox "belligerents" doesn't make any sense

The infobox presently has the Pakistan and Pakistani leaders in the right-side column. This doesn't make any sense, as the attack neither actually hit Pakistani state targets, nor was it intended to hit them. If we go by the intended parties in this conflict, the right side columns say "Jaish-e-Mohammed (alleged)" under "Belligerents" and perhaps list some of the chief militants of JeM, especially if there's evidence Indian intelligence expected them to be there at the time of the bombing; on the other hand, if we go by the actual targets, it should say "None" under "Belligerents" and not lkst any commanders. In either case, however, we should list "None" and "0" under "Units involved" and "Strength", respectively. What definitely doesn't make sense is the present wording which implies the target was the Pakistani military. It is true that Pakistan subsequently retaliated in the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, but that's a different subject with its own article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But they were still in charge. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In charge of what? An empty forest with no one it? The trees that got hurt? Also, you reverted multiple edits by me, some of which were basically minor copyediting jobs or minor expansions of the content based on the given sources, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe are remotely controversial. You can't just revert edits and claim they require "consensus"; you need to also explain what specific objections you have. I understand the infobox revert but not the revert you made to my changes to the body. Was this an accident, by you, in an attempt to just revert my infobox changes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that (read WP:ONUS, and wp:brd), and as an example, a commander is the person in command, that is what it means, not that they were a target or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Can do what? You're not making any sense, and also not responding to my questions. If you don't have any specific objections to my NON-infobox changes, I am going to reinstate my changes. They were really quite minor and I am flummoxed as to what there even is to challenge; this has the smell of WP:STONEWALL all over it. WP:BRD clearly states to only revert when necessary, and only if you can't make improvements yourself; it also states be specific about your reasons in the edit summary. I've seen 0 evidence of you even making an attempt to do any of that. WP:ONUS is about verifiability, but you haven't even made any specific claims about the verifiability of my edits, or even given any specific reasons why you dislike them (besides those in the infobox)! This is thoroughly unsurprising, since my body edits were extremely minor edits, all already verified by the pre-existing sources. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS and do not wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Which claims did I make outside the infobox which you feel are not verified? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There are no commanders listed as belligerents, only India and Pakistan and their respective airforces. No person is named (in the infobox). Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I fully concede that you have made your objections known about the infobox changes, but you also reverted my changes to the body. This is the last time I will ask this question myself: do you have any concrete objections to the non-infobox edits? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See below. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Below where you flatly refuse to engage? WP:BRD explicitly says it is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter, yet that is exactly how you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way this article is a comprise that tries to please both sides, do not try and shift the emphasis. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how my edits do that? Your comments are so vague I have trouble understanding what you are even talking about, but I suspect you might need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not yet, I am about to go out, hopefully others will. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't how Misplaced Pages works. WP:BRD clearly states that it is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter, and that reverters should be specific about your reasons in the edit summary, and you have failed to provide a reason for your revert to my non-infobox changes, and are completely refusing to even attempt to explain your non-infobox-related reverts. You are very obviously engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence. This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again. Thus I was trying to head off any edit waring. We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue). Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few? We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence.

Which "sides" are you even talking about? If one of those sides is the Indian government, sorry, but all reliable sources agree: they lied. There is no reason to take their lies seriously in the pursuit of a "neutral POV"—this is WP:FALSEBALANCE. And the consensus from previous discussions has been that the claims of the Indian government should not be reported uncritically on this (and other) affairs, and as a result of this incident and other similar ones, previous RfCs and discussions have led to a number of Indian media sources being downgraded in perceived reliability. All of this has little to do with my edits, frankly, but you seem to labor under a misconception that is worth correcting.

This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again.

Then why did you kick it off again, over a complete frivolity? You can't kick off a dispute and then claim it was to prevent dispute—you are the one who initiated it, take some responsibility! Anyways, your argument amounts to "this page should never change because some people's feathers were ruffled in the past", and is especially laughable when the edits being challenged are as minor as they are.

We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue)

Finally an actual, substantive discussion of my edits, instead of meaningnless vagueposting. Lead with this next time.

If you already know they are human, why does adding the word change anything? Anyways, you concede it's not a major issue (though that has hardly stopped you from somehow trying to transform it into one).

Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few?

Did you read the source? No, of course not, because you are using WP:BRD expressly as it is not to be used, as means of freezing articles, and thus did not do your due diligence. I changed the wording from Some Western diplomats to Western diplomats in Islamabad because the latter is, verbatim, the wording used in the source, whereas the former is not and is unspecific, besides being bad style (the reasons why I changed it). I cannot imagine that even the basest far right Hindutva ideologue who uncritically believes every word that drops from Modi's mouth would find my wording to be more controversial than the prior wording—if anything, it necessarily limits the scope of the involved officials even more, to just those in Islamabad—so I am once again amazed you are challenging it. It is simply, verbatim, the wording used in the source.

We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings).

The reason I made this change is precisely because of the prior existence of exactly that sort of contradiction. In your preferred version, the article reads "Villagers from the area spoke of four bombs striking a nearby forest and field around 3 am, damaging a building, and injuring a local man... lThe local hospital officials and residents asserted that they did not come across any casualty or wounded people.}} I was confused by this, as anyone would be, because how did the villagers/residents both report the bomb injuring a local man and that they did not come across any... wounded people? The apparent contradiction revolved by using slightly more specific wording, which was what all my edits (outside the infobox) were trying to do: they identified a local man received some bruises and cuts, but there were no "real" injuries (and thus no one went to the hospital). This is clear from my version, and completely inexplicable from yours, without tracing down what each source said, as I did. That is the whole and entire reason I mentioned specific injuries/damages at all. And there is no contradiction in my version if you understand what the phrase "other than" means.

Finally, re: the infobox, did you see Vanamonde's comment below? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Which source says there was no injuries or damage? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said. Reread please. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• That parameter makes about as much sense as using "infobox military conflict". I think it's use makes sense given the use of military force in the territory of a different sovereign country, but perhaps infobox military operation might be better suited? I have no strong opinion, but the parameter itself is a distraction, discussing this requires discussing the framing of the entire infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a much better solution, thank you. Using {{Infobox military operation}} didn't occur to me, but that's obviously the most appropriate infobox here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Indian history articles
• Unknown-importance Indian history articles
• C-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Implemented requested edits