Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 3 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2019 Balakot airstrike article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

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

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

• Why it should be changed:

Planet labs did not conduct the analysis of the imagery, it provided the imagery and reuters (along with experts they asked) did the analysis. I think it's not that important who provided the images, so I've just replaced that part by "Reuters".

No change to the references is necessary.

Yawkat (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Surgical Strike in Pakistan a Botched Operation? Indian jets carried out a strike against JEM targets inside Pakistani territory, to questionable effect", Medium, 28 February 2019 Quote: "Indian fighter jets carried out strikes against targets inside undisputed Pakistani territory, but open-source evidence suggested that the strike was unsuccessful."
2. ^ Martin Howell; Gerry Doyle; Simon Scarr (5 March 2019), Satellite images show buildings still standing at Indian bombing site, Reuters Quote: "The images produced by Planet Labs Inc, a San Francisco-based private satellite operator, show at least six buildings on the madrasa site on March 4, six days after the airstrike. ... There are no discernible holes in the roofs of buildings, no signs of scorching, blown-out walls, displaced trees around the madrasa or other signs of an aerial attack."
3. European Space Imaging (8 March 2019), Satellite Imagery confirms India missed target in Pakistan airstrike Quote: " ... said managing director Adrian Zevenbergen. '... The image captured with Worldiew-2 of the buildings in question shows no evidence of a bombing having occurred. There are no signs of scorching, no large distinguishable holes in the roofs of buildings and no signs of stress to the surrounding vegetation.' "
4. ^ Marcus Hellyer; Nathan Ruser; Aakriti Bachhawat (27 March 2019), "India's strike on Balakot: a very precise miss?", The Strategist, Australian Strategic Policy Institute Quote: "But India's recent air strike on a purported Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist camp in Balakot in Pakistan on 26 February suggests that precision strike is still an art and science that requires both practice and enabling systems to achieve the intended effect. Simply buying precision munitions off the shelf is not enough."
5. ^ Sameer Lalwani; Emily Tallo (17 April 2019), "Did India shoot down a Pakistani F-16 in February? This just became a big deal", Washington Post Quote: " Open-source satellite imagery suggests India did not hit any targets of consequence in the airstrikes it conducted after the terrorist attack on the paramilitaries.
6. ^ Michael Safi; Mehreen Zahra-Malik (5 March 2019), "Kashmir's fog of war: how conflicting accounts benefit both sides:India and Pakistan's differing narratives are not unusual in the social media age, say experts", Guardian Quote: "Analysis of open-source satellite imagery has also cast doubt on India's claims. A report by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab was able to geolocate the site of the attack and provide a preliminary damage assessment. It compared satellite images from the days before and after India's strike and concluded there were only impacts in the wooded areas with no damage visible to surrounding structures."
7. European Space Imaging (8 March 2019), Satellite Imagery confirms India missed target in Pakistan airstrike Quote: " ... said managing director Adrian Zevenbergen. '... The image captured with Worldiew-2 of the buildings in question shows no evidence of a bombing having occurred. There are no signs of scorching, no large distinguishable holes in the roofs of buildings and no signs of stress to the surrounding vegetation.' "

 Not done This is about the source of imagery, not who conducted the analysis. If you think the sentence should be changed to something else, please propose that — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If it just said "Analysis of imagery by Plant Labs" I would agree, but in context I disagree. The DFR used Planet Labs imagery, Reuters used Planet Labs imagery, EUSI used Maxar imagery, ASPI used Maxar imagery (via EUSI). So in my opinion, this is a list of the institutions that did the analysis, as it should otherwise say "imagery by Planet Labs and Maxar".

Maybe it is better to make the sentence less ambiguous?

−

Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory, San Francisco-based ], European Space Imaging, and the ], has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.

+

Satellite imagery analyzed by the ]'s Digital Forensics Laboratory, ], European Space Imaging, and the ], shows that India did not hit any targets of significance on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot.

Yawkat (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer WDYT? Yawkat (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

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

Bhatnagarmohitb (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In retaliation, Pakistan's F-16 was shot down by India's MiG-21 Bison, this is the first time in history that a MiG-21 shot down an F-16.

Many Pakistani terrorist camps were destroyed

Discussed more than once, but to repeat it, this is an unconfirmed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-neutral language in lead

Today, I replaced an existing citation with another one and changed the lead wording from existing "India claimed that a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet was downed, but that claim has been debunked" to "India claimed that a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet was downed, but that claim was denied by Pakistan". But my edit was reverted by Slatersteven. I wish to ask him if there really exists a universally accepted agency which can "debunk" such claims made by nations during conflicts. I checked the cited American journal hoping to see something concrete but found that the quote in question was just a passing comment from author Daniel Markey (no expert on military topics) citing a Washington Post report. This WP report is itself based on a Foreign Policy report which claimed US counted Pak's F-16s; Pentagon later said that they aren't aware of any such count. So the "Foreign Policy" report remains "disputed" as we still don't know if any such count took place or not. Its better to present things as they are. We have nothing substantial to "debunk" Indian claims of downing an F-16. What we are left with are claims and counter-claims from both the nations. The present version of lead is not in compliance with WP:NEUTRAL, WP:LEAD and WP:ATT. Hence, the change is must. Dympies (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO, back to the phrasing that has been in the article since March 2019, and thus soon to complete six years. You attempted to change it, but were reverted by user:Slatersteven who has been watching over this The WP:ONUS (which is WP policy) is yours to make the case that the phrasing needs to be changed, and to garner a new consensus for it I have added two more sources. If you edit war again, I will first soft ping some administrators and eventually post on their user talk pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No there is not an agency but we do by what the bulk of neutral (I.E. not party to this war) RS say, as there are plenty of sources that say the claim has been debunked. none (as far as I know) saying it is true. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

All sources saying Indian claims of F-16 were debunked revolves around the dubious "Foreign Policy report" which claimed US counted Pak's F-16s. But Pentagon said it isn't aware of any such count..Dympies (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Eurasian Times, @Dympies: is not a reliable source. Please don't lower the discourse here by citing "private Indo-Canadian" ventures. We have found serious scholars stating in books published by university presses (Cornell, Oxford, Michigan) and defence and military analysts writing in Asia Policy, Foreign Policy and the Washington Post, that India's claim about downing the F-16 has essentially been debunked. If you keep arguing in this manner I will have no option but to report you to administrators. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether its the Washington Post article , Asia Policy journal or any other source recently added by you, all point towards the Foreign Policy report. So, there is no need to create a citebomb in the lead. And when you give too much emphasis on Foreign Policy report, please do mention that Pentagon said it isn't aware of any such count, which makes the entire report dubious. Dympies (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No they don't; the point aplenty to the Indian evidence not being credible. They point aplenty to India's frenzied media culture wading in a tide of wishful thinking. They point aplenty to Indian journalists, working overtime to imagine any which so scenario to explain away any which so uncomfortable fact. The DoD confirmation was just the icing on the cake. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And it wasn't just the Foreign Policy article, @Dympies:. No less an expert than Sir Lawrence Freedman found the Indian claim to have been discredited by the absence of the required DoD announcement about the loss of an F-16—required by US law, that is. He and Heather Williams are cited in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As for your "source," a story in the Hindustan Times produced verbatim by a source in Sioux Falls, South Dakota attempting to be third-party, is still Hindustan Times, not third-party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The original source of information is Hindustan Times. But you can't say no such talk happened between Pentagon officials and them. When this "not aware" thing was widely published in the Indian media, Pentagon never denied it. Dympies (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

PS Journalists in South Dakota don't say "Pak" for "Pakistan" for one in story titles. It was a dead giveaway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the sourcing, F&F. I'm a little concerned we have too much detail in the lead now; how the US DOD arrived at its conclusions definitely belongs in the body, IMO. Can we shorten it to something like "... a claim rejected by independent military analysts", with the details in a footnote or in the body? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Vanamonde93: It does have detail but its sentences are highly summarized, given that I agonized aplenty. They have many quotes in the accompanying citations. If someone can use the quotes to write an expansive version of these sentences in the main body, then a true WP:SS summary can result. I trust you to do this, but I don't know how much time you have. Would you like to have a go?

But I don't like it when people move the longer bits to the main body, but don't expand them further there in order to elbow out the prevailing gunk. And gunk there is: in this instance the legion added by the Indian media and India's newfound WhatsApp culture to the world of factoid, epiphany, rumor, and dreams. Already in the nearly six years since early 2019, their emanations are the data of anthropology and psychology treatises (witness: Matthews and Robertson's Theorizing the Anthropology of Belief: Magic, Conspiracies, and Misinformation, 2024.)

Slatersteven and I have managed to save the third-party sources in the lead from consorting with the jingoistic battle-cries, but it has required determined vigilance, especially on the part of SS.

I've stayed away from this article, but ended up here, I'm not sure how or why, and found new sources, more reflective, looking back at 2019 and thought about adding them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Today, I do not have the time. Perhaps I will soon, but I can make no promises. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope you do. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 2 December 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