Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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
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
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:
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
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)
Is this DoD announcement required in case of F-16s bought by Pakistan from Jordan? I am not sure about it. There have been reports that Pakistan bought 14 F-16s in 2014 from Jordan but quoted only 13 in its official statement.. The Diplomat did notice this confusion over the actual numbers.Dympies (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I did not click on your links. Sir Lawrence Freedman is a highly reliable source for me. I don't get into chat room conversations. Apologies but that's the nub of it. Best wishes in your endeavors on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:58, 3 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)
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)
Hello, i want to edit friendly fire incident. I want to add recently concluded IAF Court martial enquiry. Also I want to add additional information regarding sattellite image part, this information would really contribute to the article. Hence please allow me to contribute— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah030000 (talk • contribs)
Hello @Shah030000:, please copy here what you want to change in the format "I'd like to change X to Y" or "I'd like to insert X between Y and Z" followed by the sources needed to backup those changes. --McSly (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question.
"The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters.
between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo.
here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you
I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question.
"The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters.
between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo.
here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
