Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Equation

It's an equation in the end, that will conclude who actually won...

As for now Pakistan is delivering the casualties to India, and will continue to do so until the standoff is over...

Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)\~

What kind of a twisted argument is this? DoomDriven (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are NOT for discussion of the subject; this section adds no value to the improvement of the article and is nothing more than WP:FORUM. Admins - please hat this section. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

wrong date

at the bottom under military events it says: On 28 February, Pakistan decided to release the captured Wing Commander on 29 February as a "gesture of peace". There isn't a 29 february this year i think it means to say 1 march, can somby edits this i dont have the ability to do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.61.4 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Casualties Balakot

India allegedly claims over 300+ casualties at Balakot; Pakistan denies any casualties... but let us assume that there even were casualties, the media can prove that it was a deliberate "blind attack" which amounts to genocide and a "war crime" by the Indians upon the people of Pakistan...

But right now the Pakistani are retaliating with excessive force against India because the violation of Pakistan's air and space boundaries...

Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)\

I humbly suggest that people who use the word genocide...should look up the definition first. An attack across the border -- is not a genocide. A retaliation for a terrorist attack -- is not a genocide. A genocide would be an attempted elimination of a substantial -- i.e. over 90 percent --- segment of an ethnic group or population or national population. Eliminating a terrorist camp or terrorist organization is not a genocide. In the current world climate -- it is not a war crime, either, and such language should not find its way into the article..

Question: The Pakistani govt has denied that any terrorist camp was destroyed. Has any source indicated whether the Pakistani govt. has been asked what measures it has taken to eliminate the terrorist group inside Pakistan? Surely if such a camp did exist...and Indian jets failed to destroy it...then the Pakistani military would be busy doing so itself, no? Both sides would agree such a camp should be destroyed, no?Chesspride172.164.60.87 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And again, user Fjgdh5 has used the Talk Page not for the discussion of a Reliable Source to improve the article, but WP:FORUM. Admins, please hat this section. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What Drone?

The conflict has just began, no Pakistani drone has fallen in India... it is the Indian side that is facing attacks by Pakistan right now... Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

F-16

Absolutely no F-16 has been shot down, the weaponry utilized by the Pakistani are far more advanced and deadly, India is in a very difficult position with Pakistan retaliation looming every second... Fjgdh5 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)\Fjgdh5 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Headlines

This should be the headline because history is being made... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Its in the news section on the main page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

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.

---

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (Article has just been started, events are progressing in hours not days, article is still being updated) --Pragmocialist (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a page on this. The page on the Balakot strike doesn't go far enough to take into account the magnitude of events since. At the very least the Balakot page should be expanded into a general discussion of the standoff. Cjs2111 (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the subject will cover all the events chronologically inclusively and extensively. Also Balakot page has to provide data of only the event in concern exclusively. Rest is your discretion respected Admins.Pragmocialist (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Pragmocialist you copied content blatantly, did you give the attribution that is required by the Wikipedia policy ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The escalation is clearly notable. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --103.116.145.18 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it lists a series of related conflicts with no other existing overall page within them. Fixman (talk!) 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• CSD Withdrawn and removed deletion template. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (because its parent article for many small incidents which are currently happening, so i dont think it should be deleted) --168.211.69.212 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Protect this article?

I think this article should be moved to the protected class or whatever it's called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrisk (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Article has extended-confirmed protection. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? What problem with editing has resulted in this over-the-top response? Silas Stoat (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Crossed the line of control"

In multiple places the article says that Indian jets crossed the "Line of Control" during the 2019 Balakot airstrike. However, Balakot is not in Kashmir and India does not dispute that it belongs to Pakistan, thus Indian jets would've also had to cross the International Border.Bless sins (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

JeM chief Masood Azhar denies any knowledge of Pulwama attack

JeM chief Masood Azhar denies any knowledge of Pulwama attack

Some contrary sources from mainstream media. Am not able to find other sources reporting that Masood Azhar denies knowledge of the Pulwama attack. The sources you have cited also describe the audio recording as unverified. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Should the Mi-17 crash be added to the article?

A Mi-17 helicopter crash occured in Kashmir during the standoff, not directly related to the standoff but to avoid further editing clashes I feel like a conversation is needed. UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it's worth mentioning, as it might not have been where it was at the time was it not for the conflict. Cepiolot (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Mi-17 helicopter crash was independent of the standoff. I agree with UniqueUsername nr1453. Viratkohli2011 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with UniqueUsername nr1453 and Viratkohli2011. There are no sources that the crash, which was accidental, was linked to the India-Pakistan events. Speculating that it might not have been there if not for the conflict is unsourced POV Original Research per Wikipedia's policy. We could only include it if sources directly linked it to the India-Pakistan events. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this section removed, as it is not relevant to the standoff between the two countries. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the same now. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose Changing Title

Change Title from 2019 "India–Pakistan standoff" to "2019 India–Pakistan Conflict", as the number of casualties of almost 500 and military jets shot down and by the military actions taken, it is more than a standoff. Standoffs generally involve small clashes, but in this case there have been total ariel attacks. Standoffs are small scale like the 2017 China–India border standoff which had 0 casualties. This incident has already surpassed the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by impact, casualties and duration. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There currently is no reliable source I have seen which states an unchallenged total of casualties. Your assertion that the Sino-Indian confrontation in 2017 produced no casualties is false, there were an indeterminate number of both Chinese and Indian soldier which were wounded due to enemy action in melee combat during an incident between both sides militaries on 15 August 2017. Furthermore, the Russo-Georgian War article was named such as the majority of reliable sources call it by that name, in addition to the fact that it was a full scale conventional war between both sides (Georgia even declared a state of war to exist, making it a declared war as well). Currently, there is no generally utilized term for the ongoing skirmishing between india and Pakistan. Given the airstrikes, it definitely has escalated beyond the ordinary low intensity skirmishing that frequents the Line of Control, but it certainly is not a full blown conventional war as of yet.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unclear, but how is active hostilities, with kinetic devices flying across a Line of Control, a "standoff"? Isn't there a better word? Abductive (reasoning) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abductive: - I concur. However, I am stumped for a better word myself. Maybe 'conflict'? - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• how are reliable sources reporting it? If nothing else is suitable then even hostilities seems like a better word--DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• FYI reliable media do call it "standoff" . "A top minister has said that the political leadership will not comment on the stand-off,"  src [1] --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Skirmish"? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: - Just because 'reliable media do call it "standoff"' doesn't mean they're right, correct? Commercial media journalists often use incorrect vocabulary these days, and in doing so, cause people to have the wrong understanding of the meaning of the words themselves... "Skirmishes" seem like a good idea, or "conflict" as you suggested, or I suggest "conflicts" instead, or see my further notes below. Mistakefinder (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that standoff is the wrong word as that suggests a stalemate in which the parties do not engage each other. The usual word for a spike like this is "crisis", e.g. the Agadir Crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis. CNN, for example, describes the current incidents as the India-Pakistan border crisis. We might then have 2019 India-Pakistan border crisis or 2019 Kashmir crisis. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree that "standoff" is the wrong word since the situation with "active hostilities, with kinetic devices flying across a Line of Control" (quoted from User talk:Abductive above) qualifies as a "war", doesn't it? Does a "military conflict" have to be an "declared war" to be considered a "war"? The current description in the intro text as "military conflict" is a term which redirects to war anyway. Perhaps "battles" is appropriate if the current scale is not considered large enough to be a "war"? Mistakefinder (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that instances of this type of events in other years have been titled as either "skirmishes" as e.g. 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmishes or "military confrontation", e.g. 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation. Perhaps just go with "military confrontation" and rename all previous years articles accordingly, with "skirmishes" as redirects? Mistakefinder (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mistakefinder I am not batting to keep the current title. in fact I would like the current title to be changed to something that is more commonly used by the mainstream media. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't mind 2019 India–Pakistan crisis. (I think a show of force is what has occurred, but we don't have a good word for it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Separation of military events and non-military events

Military and non-military events should be separated. For example, the suspension of railway traffic between India and Pakistan and the killing of Pakistani prisoner in India should not be in the same section as the military confrontation.Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Current event template

I have removed the current event template, since it has already been 30 hours since the strikes finished. nothing is changing rapidly, the reports are accurate now, official statements have also come long back--DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@@DBigXray: Hi, there is still a captured Indian pilot, whose status is actively being updated. Air routes, Stock markets are still being affected by this event. Untill both countries declare peace, we can't really consider this event to be over. Its more than just the airstrikes, there are events happening after, Daiyusha (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Daiyusha The captured pilot may not be released for several weeks/months depending upon the diplomatic progress. Stocks are stable. Both countries are already at reasonable peace since "major" military events are not being conducted. The border firings have been going on for several years and will continue like that. Full peace will never come until Kashmir is solved. Please read the wordings of the Template:Current event and you will find that none of them are applicable. Please explain which line of the template is applicable here. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff

Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff

SOURCE : https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1100705953056403456

And please take a look at https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/31091/Statement_by_Foreign_Secretary_on_26_February_2019_on_the_Strike_on_JeM_training_camp_at_Balakot

More release can be found at https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?51/Press_Releases

Indian government's official press releases never claimed that it had killed 350 militants.

And the khaleejtimes.com from where it's cited that India claimed it had killed 350 militants it's printed that sources(no details about who is/are the source/sources) said and Not that India said or Ministry of External Affairs of India declared that.

If you do agree with me then please remove the following from the article

India claimed it had killed 350 militants, a claim which has been disputed by the local residents of the targeted area.

I do believe nothing else other than Ministry of External Affairs of India's press releases should be added to Indian claims in this article same should be done to Pakistan's claims.

Regards,

Jasonx5 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Primary sources do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a state organ. Abductive (reasoning) 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's a shabby argument.

  We are not a state organ but we do neither take a hyper-nationalist media (with little reputation for fact checking in far dismal scenarios) as the Shankaracharya of Indian Military Warfare. India does not equate Indian media in these areas.

  These figures of 300/350/650/whatever shall be mentioned but never as Indian claims esp. in infobox et al. It's highly important to mention that it is the Indian media who projects these figures. ∯WBG^converse 16:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  I changed the language from "India claims" to "Indian sources claimed" after I replied to you above. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wreckage of PAF F16 called out as second IAF Plane

Hi User:Wiki.0hlic Please take a look at this pic in the Pakistani Newspaper Dawn Article. Pakistani media had been calling this pic as the wreckage of the Second IAF plane, while reports in India from IAF sources have confirmed that this is the F16 plane that was shot down by IAF planes.

• NDTV Wreckage Of Downed Pak F-16 Fighter Seen In PoK. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: As per my knowledge, Pakistan has never claimed that the wreckage of the second Indian aircraft fell in its territory. Neither has it said that it used F-16s in the air battle. Further, the Dawn article you link to captions the image as "wreckage of an Indian aircraft", and doesn't claim for it to be related to the second jet in any way. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Pak media showing fake image of mig-21. The picture they showing was 2016 crash of mig21 in kolkata india media proof it by plane number.what a laugh? Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Wiki.0hlic I hope you can now appreciate the clarification of the conflicting reports. It is clear that 2 planes came down. PAF says both were IAF jets. IAF says one was IAF Mig21 and the other was PAF F16. This has to be included accordingly into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:- There is considerable ambiguity regarding the second crashed jet. Wait for an independent source to confirm the claims of either India or Pak. Meanwhile, we can use the statements of both sides until then; which is how things currently are in the article. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki.0hlic if you are suggesting to wait for other sources, shouldn't we also remove PAF'S claim of 2 Indian jets that is in contradiction to IAF claims. Its a two way street. Either both claims need a mention or none. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: - I am suggesting to keep the article as is. Claims of both sides need to be mentioned, until proven wrong by independent sources. If you read the section pertaining to the jets being shot down, you can clearly see that both PoVs are mentioned - so its already a "two way street". - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

@DBigXray: - NDTV source is speculative. Please refrain from adding it to the article unless confirmed by neutral/independent sources. The same Northern Light infantrymen can be seen guarding the Mig-21 crash site, in the same terrain on this BBC source.

References

@DBigXray: In a recent press briefing by Indian military officers, they claimed that that Mig-21 Bison shot down an F-16 of PAF ([2]). They also presented the cover of AMRAAM missile as a proof of F-16 jets involved in the PAF's strike ([3] [4]).

@DBigXray:, please update the Indian claims by using the official sources listed by Sarvatra above. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IAF PILOT RELEASED BY PAKISTAN

Indian airforce pilot who was captured alive by Pakistan Air Force and Pakistan army will be released as a peace gesture from Pakistan prime minister Imran khan. Suhaibwiki (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Change the Indian claimed Pakistani losses from "1 fighter jet and 1 UAV shot down" to "1 F-12 and 1 UAV shot down" to be more specific
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-pakistan-tensions-live/liveblog/68195422.cms
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/indian-navy-army-air-force-joint-press-briefing-live-updates-tri-services-to-begin-briefing-at-5-pm/articleshow/68201513.cms
UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

International Response section reduction

The International Response section was reduced from the specific reactions of many nations to a sentence saying that some countries have reacted. Another user restored this section and it was deleted again. Conflicting viewpoints deserve discussion not unilateral decision. I would like to see people vote on this. For having the individual reactions of different nations, as is the norm, I am in support. Cepiolot (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I support the restoration of individual reactions as well. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

support, some major countries have made statements that could be seen as non-neutral, and that should be showcased (as accurate to their statement as possible obviously) - UniqueUsername nr1453 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I will support this and please note that the statement by United States must be there in the article as they didn't just only called for restraint but they also asked Pakistan to take further action against terrorist groups present in the country. Jasonx5 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Report Admits no JEM Camp found at Indian "Strike" Site and No signs of any Casualties

A recent article published by Al Jazeera here : "https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/indian-air-raid-site-casualties-mysterious-madrassa-190227183058957.html" admit that the indian 'strike' resulted in no loss of life, thereby supporting Pakistan's claims and denying all of Indian claims. As an internationally reputable newpaper with reliable sources, I request for this citation to be added and the losses on the Pakistani Side be mentioned as "0" with this citation as a Neutral Claim to further strengthen the reliability and integrity of this article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattha94 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please wait, until the recency of this incident terminates and we thus have a far solid sketch of the ground-realities, from neutral observers (of whom, there exists ample many). FWIW, the part. madrassa (and it's vicinity) has been made inaccessible to the locals as well as reporters for non-asserted causes. ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is worth adding reports from neutral observers both to this article and 2019 Balakot airstrike. But both Indian and Pakistani claims of casualties must be mentioned in both the lead and the infobox.Bless sins (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is well known to be biased in favour of anything Muslim. It should not be counted among neutral sources. The article in question doesn't give any solid sources. DoomDriven (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

can we have an article on Abhinandan Varthaman on Wikipedia

Looking into the crystal ball, results are largely positive DBigXrayᗙ

Hello,

I was just wondering that can we have a stand alone article on Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. He is in the News and I do think an article on him will most probably pass Wikipedia:Notability.

Some news article that are reliable and independent:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47397418

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/437612-who-is-wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47399126

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/480387-Who-is-Wing-Commander-Abhinandan-Varthaman

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman-here-all-you-need-know-about-iaf-pilot-pakistan-custody/story/323152.html

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/iaf-pilot-in-pakistani-custody-will-be-governed-under-geneva-convention-119022701005_1.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/wing-commander-abhinandan-varthaman-chennai-iaf-1467149-2019-02-28 Jasonx5 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jasonx5, see WP:BLP1E. If I am allowed to gaze at my crystal-ball, I'm pretty sure that GOI's going to award him some prestigious war-medal, soon enough and thus merit his inclusion over WP, eventually :-) ∯WBG^converse 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Winged Blades of Godric's ball. His case will also be cited in military history so people can be expected to look for his BIO. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric and User:DBigXray actually there is already an article on him. SEE Abhinandan Varthaman and please add internal links to his article wherever his name is mentioned. Jasonx5 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps editors should wait and see if the notability endures beyond this one incident.Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Given BLP concerns, my suggestion at this time would be to wait for a while before creating an article. Let the person come back and let's see some more concrete coverage. I also agree with the crystal ball analogy.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Could someone look at this information and see if it can be added.

• https://www.dawn.com/news/1466569/indian-pilot-fired-into-air-before-being-captured from the news:
  "Mohammad Razzaq Chaudhry was in the courtyard of his house in Horra’n village, located barely 7km from the Line of Control (LoC) in Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s Bhimber district, at about 8:45am on Wednesday when the “smoke and sound” made him realise that a dogfight was going on up above in the sky.
  Upon watching them carefully, the 58-year-old political and social activist of the area noticed that two aircraft had caught fire but while one of them sped across the LoC, the other burst into flames and came down speedily."

The news from Pakistani media talks about what locals at the ground saw. Pakistan airforce also claim that 2 Indian jets were shot down. 1 fell in Pakistan, the other fell in India. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 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. DBigXrayᗙ 10:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I wanted to add the local claims (who were on the ground) regarding the whole event. If possible, I want to add the information in the first paragraph under 'Airstrike and aircraft shot down section', after this: "India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot;[46] subsequently the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed[15] that an Indian pilot was missing in action after a MiG-21 Bison fighter plane was lost while engaging with Pakistani jets after they violated Indian airspace.[47]".
The information presented should be something like this: "Locals on the ground also claim that they saw two aircraft in flames but while one of the aircraft sped across the Line of Control the other one fell in Pakistan."
Sources are:
from Dawn News https://www.dawn.com/news/1466569/indian-pilot-fired-into-air-before-being-captured
from Gulf News https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/i-saw-a-parachute-says-witness-who-recounted-how-indian-pilot-abhinandan-in-pakistan-engaged-in-a-dog-fight-1.1551343370847
from Tribune India https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/nation/in-hostile-territory-abhinandan-put-up-valiant-resistance-and-attempted-to-secure-documents/736065.html
Alibaloshi12 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What about uploading picture of the captured pilot of IAF on Wikimedia commons ?

Actually I got some pictures of the captured pilot from the tweets of PAF spokes person and I do not know what license I need to apply on commons to these images and as in the past I uploaded an Image with wrong license so this time I will leave it to you guys to decide whether it should be in the commons or not

Image 1 https://i.ibb.co/tDXwD1s/D0a-Hc2-LXc-AAm-PWw-jpg-large.jpg

Image 2 https://i.ibb.co/wYyCRqk/D0ac1-XAXQAAtaq-X-jpg-large.jpg

Jasonx5 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is unlikely that these photos would be able to pass the image use policy, and their inclusion in the article would likely be undue and overly specific coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

chiefs of all three wings of indian army have given an official statement

Three indian cheifs have officially given out the statement about the tension created between india and pakistan. They have also confirmed that india has shot 1 f16 fighter jet of pakistan air force by showing the wreckege of amraam missile (pakistan has only one fighetget which can use amraam missile i.e. f16. They have also claimed that the idian armed forces are fully prepared for any situation if they are provoked by pakistan Madsin19 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, what do secondary sources say? Abductive (reasoning)

Yes the news is correct Madsin19 (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

In the article it is written that "On 28 February, a picture of an aircraft wreckage in Pakistan administered Kashmir was claimed by IAF sources as the wreckage of the PAF F-16 shot down by the IAF Mig-21." The source is NDTV and they show a picture of crashed jet in Pakistan claiming that it is a Pakistan's F-16. However, Indian defense analyst Abhijit Iyer Mitra claim that the wreckage shown in the video by Indian media does not belong to F-16. Rather it is the wreckage of Mig 21. The wreckage in the picture is the engine part. The analyst also claim that Pakistan use Pratt & Whitney engine. Pratt & Whitney has diamond pattern. The engine in the video is different one. Also the inside of the F-16 is different from the one shown in the video. The video is from India Today and it is posted on Twitter. So I think it can qualify has credible source. So can someone add the information mentioned by defense analyst Abhijit Iyer Mitra after that? Here is the link [5] Here he also mention on his Twitter page that there is no proof that F-16 was actually shot down [6] 94.185.14.112 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You are sharing doctored video from twitter. The video and the audio are not matching the lip sync. U need better sources than twitter DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray here is a Pakistani media Ary News covering the issue [7], and no it is not a doctored video. Abhijit Iyer Mitra himself confirmed that video on his Twitter account. 94.185.41.169 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's not true that only General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is capable of using AMRAAM C5 see the image of brochure of CAC-PAC JF-17, check the ARMAMENT Section and I am adding this as a fact and I also know it's not a secondary source. Jasonx5 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This the CAC-PAC JF-17 Thunder brochure built by China and Pakistan

Pakistani pilot lynched by Pakistani public who thought he was IAF pilot

• http://idrw.org/air-marshal-raghunath-nambiar-names-dead-pakistani-f-16-pilot-shotdowned-by-indian-mig-21bis/
• https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/1101141807054807040?s=19

Shahzaz had to eject using parachute. He fell down in semi conscious condition. He was thrashed by locals who thought him to be an IAF commander as his jacket was torn beyond recognition. At the same time, Abhinandan was also being thrashed by another group of locales at an entirely different location. Pakistan Army, in fact, believed the initial rumours that the other pilot is also an Indian and had made declaration to the media. Few hours later, they realized the blunder. Shahzaz died at the CMH.

• https://ipious.blogspot.com/2019/02/shahzaz-ud-din-wing-commander-paf.html?m=1

Do we have a better source for this? DBigXrayᗙ 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

[8] there you go, DBigXray. Kerberous (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure an Indian source is neutral in this situation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• More details have now emerged about this lynching incident[9]. According to this article by Praveen Swami, "The news that Shahaz-ud-Din's plane was shot down was first reported by London-based lawyer Khalid Umar, who says he received it privately, from individuals related to the F-16 pilot’s family." This might warrant a mention in the article now. Kerberous (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I will be more convinced when so-me main stream media and neutral media pick this up.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Add Casualities to Indian forces.
7 Killed. Mi-17 Military transport helicopter (Technical crash).. As a part of the ongoing standoff. Khan79797979 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Seperate unrelated incident. See the discussion thread few threads above DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Why is it protected?

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I could not see any kind of edit-war on this topic. Why is it protected? 103.225.221.229 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I protected the page as per WP:ARBIPA, as a prophylactic against potential disruption on this high-profile subject. GAB^gab 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Satellite imaging analysis

Don't use medium.com as a source because it is an unreliable WP:SPS per threads on RSN such as here, here and more. Until now we don't have consensus against those many discussions. If such "analysis" is really important then it should be easy to find reliable sources to support them. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

शिव साहिल, the first of those threads don't concern Medium and the second had 3 participants (incl. the OP) without leading to any consensus.

The Digital Forensic Research Lab wing of Atlantic Council, a reputed think-tank publishes it's pieces in medium.com. and I fail to see about why we shall be any bothered about their choice.

If you are questioning the reliability of AC, that's at-least a fair query but the non-reliability of Medium is an acute non-starter. ∯WBG^converse 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• shiv sahil, your statement is correct. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• It would be best if we wait and see if other authoritative sources corroborate the findings of the Atlantic Council before adding this to the article, in my opinion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah; let's see. But I strongly disagree about Shiv's branding it to be unreliable. ∯WBG^converse 09:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now this piece, which has been reprinted in The wire. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If the piece has been reported in other outlets that are known to be reliable, then it should be included.Bless sins (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: and @Bless sins: I agree, reinstate the source. It's 100% reliable since other outlets have confirmed satellite analysis. I am sick of Indians and Pakistanis engaging in this revert war and disallowing neutral parties to have a say in the analysis of what's happening over in South Asia. I also propose a general ban on using Indian and Pakistani sources since both nations media institutions are government controlled. Both have a freedom press index score of 43.24. This results in incredible POV pushing thats very contradictory. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right venue, but agree with the principle.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgive, but is there now a general consensus that we can reinstate the source (and add the others as well?) NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No we are not going to reinstate any unreliable sources that are known for lacking any editorial oversight. You appear to be misrepresenting what Bless sins has said as he only said "If the piece has been reported in other outlets that are known to be reliable" but so far it has not been. Consider avoiding any more personal attacks and wild WP:ASPERSIONS. Orientls (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There's enough consensus to include and I am proceeding. FWIW; no body ain't attacking anyone. ∯WBG^converse 10:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be best to not use the Medium source just to avoid any chance of an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Don't add back this faulty source. If you want to make such edits then make your edits incrementally so that it would be easier to revert/review. If you are going to make With 5 people disagreeing and only 2 people agreeing with inclusion, there is "enough consensus" but for rejecting this source and information. Be it medium.com an SPS, or The Wire which is also not RS for these exceptional claims. Until then you can read this and we can wait. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

शिव साहिल, really? The Wire ain't an RS? The Quartz ain't an RS? CNBC ain't an RS? Firstpost ain't an RS? And, don't make dumb reverts using dumb edit-sums that restores content cited to Twitter whilst removing content cited to Reuters. And, WP is not a mouthpiece of the respective governments. ∯WBG^converse 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Wire is absolutely not an RS for this, because it covers anything no matter how unreliable that happens to be anti-BJP. Where did CNBC, Firstpost referred to this? You are still using medium.com as a source by edit warring and censoring the opposition towards your edits here.[10] Except that, why you are misrepresenting sources? शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

शिव साहिल, Wire covers anything that is anti-BJP. "Citation needed". It's indeed a left-biased paper, which suffers from a certain lack of objectivity in it's journalism but you need to go RSN for an outright ban (which will be never successful). They can be used in these scenarios, where they are reprinting expert independent voices, esp. with attribution.

And; whatb'out Quartz? ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that piece has been also referenced by the Quartz piece. ∯WBG^converse 11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No issue with that, just saying best not to use that particular source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can find "that piece" being referred by any reputable media.[11] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That exact piece was published by The Print and that exact piece (the Medium link) was referred in the Quartz piece.If you don't believe The Print and The Quartz to be reliable; RSN is that-way.∯WBG^converse 11:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are the links of those stories? They don't appear in Google News so far as the link in my above message shows. They have to be reliable and mainstream if you want inclusion. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What? If you seriously believe that any link which does not appear on a Google search is unreliable; you're trolling. FWIW; if you search with this string, both appears in the first page to me. But you might be interested in knowing that Google does not display the same results to everyone, everywhere. ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And what the hell do you mean by where are the link to those stories? What prevents you from clicking Ref 32 and Ref 42, (cited after the particular sentence) and going to this piece and this piece? ∯WBG^converse 12:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, not every source (or indeed any source) needs to be online.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• From my current count:- I, Slaterseven, Bless Sins and NarSakSasLee are in favor of inclusion. Shiv and Orientls are opposing. Anupam's stance can't be specified and IMJ2001 is not worth bothering about. ∯WBG^converse 12:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

But since the general MO of Quartz and The Wire, in this situation be it Quartz (which makes passing mention) or be it the Wire (article written by Michael Sheldon himself) are indeed unreliable for this sort of content. We shouldn't be including this self-published piece unless mainstream channels provide any importance these claims.Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How are they self published?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Field Marshal Aryan, what the fuck? You know about what self-published means, eh? Have you ever seen WP:RSSELF? Do you think that the Print would allow you to write a column, tomorrow, absent any meaningful credential and without any editorial verification?

And you need to learn grammar. Don't speak gibberish like--But since the general modus operandi of Quartz and The Wire, in this situation be it Quartz or be it the Wire are indeed unreliable for this sort of content. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, what leads you to believe that things that are covered by passing mentions may not be mentioned over a WP article? ∯WBG^converse 12:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Try finding mainstream reliable sources. If information is important it should be easy for Times of India, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc. to cover this story. Blog sources don't fulfil the requirement.Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

They are not blogs either.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Field Marshal Aryan, शिव साहिल see this NYT piece and this WashingtonTimes piece which mentions Sheldon's analysis explicitly. I guess NYT/WT ain't a blog, eh? ∯WBG^converse 10:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep it polite, abuse will only escalate the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This area sees some incredible polite POV pushing and this is the exact representative of IDHT behaviour, one encounters in these area. One after another editor springs up (our Field Marshal is back after a 2 year hiatus) with dubious arguments to stonewall any improvement. FWIW, I was really unable to parse that sentence; i don't speak/write such stuff. ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Its still POV pushing (assuming it is), report it, leave a message on their talk page. But leave it off article talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• It seems pretty obvious that the Atlantic Council analysis needs to be presented as well as the (unofficial) Indian rebuttals. I am not sure why there is such a big debate about this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the Indian rebuttal is based on synthetic aperture radar images, which presumably gives more information than visual spectrum satellite images. So there is no contradiction between the two as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric, Slatersteven, Kautilya3, and Bless sins: So, after that, we are all in agreement. The sources on satellite imagery should be included. The sources are reliable (it is nonsensical to say they are not), and the editors that are saying they are unreliable are clearly engaging in POV pushing (and it seems no coincidence these editors appear to be Indian here). No Pakistani sources should be used as they too will be POV pushing. Please add in the sources. If these POV pushing editors revert it please report them to WP:ANI. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Before you spout further nonsense, let me remind you that The Wire is also an "Indian source" which jumps to attack anything that is not suiting their pro-leftist political agenda. This alone makes it unreliable. Stop treating Wikpedia as your battleground and read WP:CIR. 198.16.70.52 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 it seems that the analysis is not actually from "Atlantic Council", but a person who happened to work there. This analysis is not representative of Atlantic Council, otherwise it would be noted on their official website or reliable sources would be saying so. Should the analysis attract attention of a reputed source and be published by a reputed source then only it would matter. I don't expect now because there have been enough days and now the news is probably outdated. No objections to adding the reports about the Indian evidence synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) images,[12] given this article already includes details about a satellite-data analysis by Nathan Ruser. 198.16.70.52 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

If you visit the Atlantic Council website and move to the blogs tab; you'll locate the DFRLab and clicking on it takes you to the Medium page. Whilst, rest of the blogs are on their own website, the DFRLab chooses to use Medium as it's publication fora.

At any case, ignoring SPAs (like you), we do seem to be heading towards a consensus for inclusion. ∯WBG^converse 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The Atlatic Council DFR piece has been cited by both the New York Times and the Washington Post. That is enough authentication for me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Abhinandan Varthaman" be hyperlinked?

There is a Wikipedia page on IAF Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhinandan_Varthaman Shouldn't the name in this article linked to the URL of his article? Honeybrowneyes (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

Add this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhinandan_Varthaman on this name "Abhinandan Varthaman" Aqeelghouse (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it has been done by now. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

Could some one add neutral claims of no casualties under the casualties sections, since there are some neutral claims made by various sources:

1) [13] The Independent asserts that "Like many Israeli boasts of hitting similar targets, the Indian adventure into Pakistan might owe more to the imagination than military success. The “300-400 terrorists” supposedly eliminated by the Israeli-manufactured and Israeli-supplied GPS-guided bombs may turn out to be little more than rocks and trees."

2) [14] Reuters report that "Western diplomats in Islamabad also said they did not believe the Indian air force hit a militant camp. “There was no militant training camp there. It hasn’t been there for a few years – they moved it. It’s common knowledge amongst our intelligence,” said one of them." 5.21.246.31 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: being discussed above. When you use the edit request template, please be sure to indicate specifically what edit you are requesting, conventionally in "please change X to Y" format. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulation.

Brave Wing commander abhinandan is handed to indian official plz add it. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Was already added ([15]). Please note that Wikipedia will not describe him as "brave", per WP:NPOV and especially per WP:LABEL. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Release of Indian Wing commander was a helplessness of Pakistan government. Because whole world is blaming Pakistan as a hub of terrorists. So, to wipe out such image of Pakistan, Imran Khan (present Prime minister of PAK) presenting gentle and kind nature of modern Pakistan. Farmanafsar (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Geneva Convention

Editor DarpSinghh has added a section suggesting that the pilot's release was not in good faith but due to requirements of the Geneva Conventions, based (after I objected) on this news18 source. I believe this is being presented inappropriately in Wikipedia's voice. The news18 source used is giving their opinion on the status of the pilot as a prisoner of war and thus giving their own conclusion that the release was required by international law, not a show of good faith as it seems most sources have both governments saying. I think this is conjecture, and at any rate needs better sourcing than this. I suggest it be removed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, if most (all other) sources disagree with the idea this was not a good will gesture.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that it's best not to depend on the national media(s) (esp. of India) which seems to be suffering from a spate of hyper-nationalism. Whilst there's a factor of Geneva Conventions; whether they can be validly invoked in the current situation at all, is a matter of active debate between neutral observers. I will try to re-frame the paragraph, morrow..... ∯WBG^converse 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ongoing

Yes events are still ongoing, and we are updating this almost hourly, the tag should have stayed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

F-16 Wreckage shown by Indian officials

F-16 Wreckage shown by Indian officials does not belong to Pakistani F-16, please review the following report. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1920385/1-fact-checking-missile-shown-indian-generals-sold-taiwan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.5.77 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The news report is incorrect. The contract code applies to all deliveries made from Raytheon's lot 19 production. In 2006, AMRAAMs were contracted by Pakistan under the same lot. —Gazoth (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tough one, OR does not trump RS. But as this is a Pakistani source I am not sure we can rely upon it, at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, there are Indian sources that claim to debunk the Pakistani claim using similar sources. Presenting them here would have turned this into yet another he said she said type of situation. In the absence of any neutral source on this, I thought it'd be better to just use OR to determine the validity of the claim. —Gazoth (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It is never better to use OR for anything, we do not analyse sources. What we do is leave stuff out if in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

F16 shot down

The IAF and the India MEA have claimed that an F16 was shot down by the pilot

Is Wiki contesting an official claim made by the Govt Of India itself?

It should be noted that whilst the Pakistani side first claimed 2 planes down and 3 pilots captured, and then claimed 1 down and only 1 captured - it became obvious that the other plane shot down was an F16 - 2 seater.

Having followed the edits on the article - why would credibility be given by the Wiki to Paki Govt statements and not to Indian Govt statements?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.19.195 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

IP User 183.82.19.195 Please propose, the content that you want to add or propose something in the format of Change X to Y along with sources and your suggestion will be added into the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a live news feed

We do not need constant updates of every claim each side has made, we should wait until it is all over before adding new material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It is a good suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.19.195 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Respected Sir/Madam, i would like to request that you please add the confirmation of the second Indian MiG-21 shot down. The link This is Proof from the Indian side. As for the Indian claim of the Wreckage being an F-16, this is again an Indian channel. There is also an Indian media claim that the second Indian jet that was shot down was a Su-30mki 103.255.4.254 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC) In light of the aforementioned references, all of which are from the Indian side. I would like to make the following recommendations: 1-The Number of Indian Fighter jets downed should be confirmed 2 rather than 2 claimed by Pakistan and 1 by India. 2-The authenticity of India's claims regarding an F-16 downed must be questioned by the article as an Indian aviation expert has refuted it. 3-The Specifications of The indian jets downed must be changed from "2 MiG-21 shot down" to "1 MiG-21 and 1 Su-30mki" again this is not claimed by any Pakistani outlet but confirmed by the Indian one. The fact that the MiG-21 is a single seater and the F-16 which is used in combat is also a single seater.( 2 seater is for training) further disputes the authenticity of India's claim that it's soldiers saw three parachutes, also worth noting is the fact that the Su-30mki is a dedicated 2 seater fighter. It could also be added that the Indian air defenses may have shot down the Mi-17 helicopter and claimed to have killed an F-16. The reference is provided here : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.4.254 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a news claiming that the F16s used belonged to the training unit (Sherdil) and was piloted by Wing Commander Shahaz-ud-Din, and hence was a 2 seater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.19.195 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Rejected: Youtube videos are not reliable sources and cannot be used as references. Global village.com also does not appear to be a reliable source, (its news reports are user submitted) and doesn't say that India shot down the Mi-17 anyway, just that it may have. No changes required to the article at this time.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoever has rejected my recommendations ought to be an Indian as he clearly neglects the fact that the youtube videos are recorded Indian media clips and can be searched for on the media channels' own website as well. As for doubting gobalvillage, the article itself provides multiple references to support it's argument .it's written after thorough research and anyone can see that . I suggest before rejecting the source you first read it through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.4.254 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Here is another source which is neutral and further puts doubt over the claim of the Indian govt that they shot an F-16. As the plane in the picture is clearly a JF-17

The problem is are they form the official YouTube channels of those media outlets, or just some blokes uploads?Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Take your ridiculous synthesis elsewhere. Random YouTube videos are not reliable sources. ∯WBG^converse 12:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Youttube video are not consider as refrence. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019 Application of Geneva Convention on Indian pilot

In the 'Militart events' section, under the heading 'Airstrike and aircraft shot down' in the last paragraph where it is mentioned that Indian Air Force viewed the release of pilot as requirement under Geneva Convention and not the goodwill gesture, add "But However experts differ over the application of Geneva Convention to the captured Indian pilot as it is only applicable during war which was not officially declared between Pakistan and India. Usama Ahmad 11:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys really need to do research before jumping to such conclusions. Under Geneva Convention, Common Article 2 relating to international armed conflicts states that "The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war."DarpSinghh (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So, RS say X we say RS have said X. We are not international lawyers and so how we interpret it may be wrong. "shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities", so one can argue that (as they are still) engaged in hostilities there is no legal basis for his release. That is at the heart of this, yes he should be released at some point, some experts say "technically not yet" whilst some people say "now".Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Whilst I agree with the observation (and this tallies with my comment to Ivanvector above); we need to find at-least two neutral sources documenting the differing views of experts about the validity of the Geneva Convention. News from either Indian media or Pakistani media won't suffice. ∯WBG^converse 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

After his arrest, he was not given the status of a PoW and his status was yet to be determined but soon PM announced his release. He was termed captured Indian pilot and his entry was seen as illicit entry so nowhere in Geneva Convention it is written about application on illicit entry. I'm saying this because I myself a law student and I've studied International Humanitarian Law. Indian fellows here need to do research on it. Also it was not even a proper armed conflict as militaries didn't confront, so Geneva Convention can't be applied to this situation at all. (Usama Ahmad 13:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC))

And this is OR, we need wp:rs for this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Fake News

"On the contrary, 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"

This is quite frankly fake news and a twisting of words. Sheikh Rasheed did not say anything of like hence why you won't even see any international or neutral sources reporting this. It's only been India media grasping at straws 103.78.135.203 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

True that; we need reliable neutral media on this part. locus except if some Pakistani media do report the same. ∯WBG^converse 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you also look into the edits made to the Balakot Airstrike article? The same user posted this whole thing there as well 103.78.135.203 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In his statement, Sheikh Rasheed says "Masood Azhar sahb ka madrassa zarur hai laiken wo na honay ke barabar hai" which roughly translates "Masood Azhar does indeed have a madrassa but you could pretty much say that it doesn't exist/is irrelevant". Sheikh Rasheed literally follows it up by talking about how the only thing India had managed to damage were trees

103.78.135.203 (talk)

source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the accuser. I can't provide a source for something that literally didn't happen lol. I could provide you a link to Sheikh Rasheed's address but I don't know if you speak/understand Urdu 103.78.135.203 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No the burden of proof lies with the user who wants to add something. By the way we need independent sources, at this time I question the independence of either the Pakistani or Indian media.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

103.78.135.205 (talk · contribs) plz provide proof. wikipedia need proof. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

F-16 wreckage claim

believing that this piece may not be reliable for any type of potential usage? FWIW, the reporting organisation has won the Hanns Joachim Friedrichs Award, has been nominated for Pulitzer by the parliaments of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia and do seem to be quite known for its open-source intelligence gathering and investigative journalism. Further extensive reviews are located over here, here, here and here. ∯WBG^converse 13:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this is an SPS, no idea who he is so cannot comment beyond that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Two Pakistani soldiers and six civilians killed by Indian troops. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-pakistan-resume-shelling-in-kashmir-3-killed/2019/03/01/333cabe8-3ca2-11e9-b10b-f05a22e75865_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.45b65ec80c01 Libin Scaria (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Again we are not a live news feed, we cannot and should not list every incident. Moreover until this is all over any casualty count will need updating every time a new announcement is made.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert AGF edits

Can these edits be reverted. A WP:RS neutral source has been removed without reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/885808155 125.63.125.9 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your post is misleading because reason had been provided. I agree with the edit too since many media outlets covered this incident, that's why we don't need to give undue weight to single outlet here especially when we are highlighting their view such as in this case. ML ^talk 14:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

My Lord, nope. NYT as a highly acclaimed and neutral source has a unique significance. By the way, nice to see you:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Templete:not done it is reverted. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin

"There were reports doing the round in Pakistani media houses that Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of F-16s will file a lawsuit against India for falsely claiming to have shot down the aircraft. However, Lockheed Martin in reply said that it did not make such remarks"

Could any sources be provided to ascertain the claim that Pakistani media houses were reporting anything of such? 103.78.135.203 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. ∯WBG^converse 14:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This was the news report that Lockheed Martin replied to on Twitter. The Print mostly links to forum discussion threads about these news rather than the news themselves, so it is hard to get an idea about how widespread this really was. One of those links lead to an Urdu news source. Both sites have low Alexa ranks [16][17] and it looks like this picked up only due to Lockheed Martin's reply. —Gazoth (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely; my searches said the same.

A few journalists (and intellectuals) from Pak were quoting that report in tweets and numerous folks were asking Lockheed to verify and/or clarify. Thus came the tweet or so I guess. ∯WBG^converse 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Would it help if Lockheed Martin India's official, verified Twitter account was quoted? https://twitter.com/LMIndiaNews/status/1101574340011798529 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Read my question again 103.78.135.203 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This would be OK for LM response, not for the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

There was no cherry-picking from the NYT piece; unless someone is reinventing the term. It was the first line of it's piece and I inserted that with full attribution. NYT as a highly acclaimed publication and a neutral source on the entire locus has a unique significance which can't be denied. Also, see this t/p section on another article for the Lockheed aspect. ∯WBG^converse 14:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

why do you have to explictly state that it was humilating for India. Nowhere has it been written that it was humilating for pak after the indian air trike or 2016 surgical strike. Even other sources like reuter have covered it neutrally then why choose ny times?Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The question was asked how was it cherry picking, not why was it needed. So I will ask, how is this cherry picking (see wp:cherry).Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide neutral sources for humilating for pak after the indian air trike or 2016 surgical strike. Also echoing Slaterseven. ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If you take out all the emotion, I think the consensus would support WBG's position. NYT is a neutral and reputable source. The topic at hand is not the 2016 "surgical strike" or anything. I think not including this statement on Wikipedia would be equivalent to censoring wikipedia. First line of paragraph on censorship reads "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." Just becasue someone find it objectionable does not make it grounds fro removal. I agree with WBG. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Err.....But, on retrospection, I think it's somewhat an over-sharp phrasing from a single neutral source. And, I have withdrawn from my stance.

At any case. there are ample many neutral sources which points out that it isn't India who have appeared the more clever/tactful of the two, after the entire saga and I would try to write a line using those. ∯WBG^converse 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

TheGreatWikiLord, also can you kindly chime in over this thread, just a few ones up. ∯WBG^converse 15:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric I see that you are insisting to inject a phrase that said "capped a humiliating episode" into the article. Aren't you throwing WP:NPOV out of the window by edit warring over this ? Do you really believe that an encyclopaedia article should use such phrases ? I expected better from you. It is understandable for media websites such as Times to do this sort of thing for clickbaits and ad revenue. It is not expected from Wikipedia. IMHO there is absolutely no need to quote this hyperbolic and overly sensational phrase into the article. If someone would like to copy edit the content and present it in their own words they should present the copy edited content here on talk page first and gain consensus to before adding it back into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  DBigXray, you are late by quite many hours. Check my edit sums. I myself reverted another editor, who added that phrase, because I realized my errors. Honestly, I have stated the same before (about my withdrawal). Missed that? ∯WBG^converse 08:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Also, I wasn't edit-warring over this. Unless, you call my revert of content added by me as an example of edit-warring. ∯WBG^converse 08:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ok apologies for being late to the party, but being late doesn't mean I cant have fun. Moving to the satellite thread now. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have minded leaving it in as long as it was attributed to the New York Times. I have forgotten how long it has been since I saw the New York Times rant like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

edit war

Breaking my own rule here, remember that WP:3RR apllies to us all. A number of users appear to have breached it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Could someone update the casualties on the Indian side. India claim that 4 Indian civilians were killed in cross border firing. [18] and [19]. 37.200.187.104 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not, in fact remove it. This is going to change (at least) daily. So lets leave it out until it is all over.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also could someone look into Belling Cat analysis of wreckage which Indian media claims is that of F 16. [20] The analysis found that the wreckage belongs Mig 21 Bison. The analysis should be added after the Indian media and IAF claims. Also it is worthwhile to note that India Airforce has changed their narrative. They claimed that they never crossed the loc. [21] Indian Express reports that: A second official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the IAF was keen on crossing the LoC to bomb the target but it was decided that it should only fire the PGM “from Indian side of LoC”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.187.104 (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

37.200.187.104 (talk · contribs) it is ongoing situation media report changes frequently. It is now conformed by america that pak used F-16 against india and break the policy. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Fake news and war-craze

• Chandrashekhar, Vaishnavi. "India's Media Is War-Crazy". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• "Backstory: War and the Spectacle of Indian Media". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• Thaker, Aria; Thaker, Aria. "Indian media trumpeting about Pakistani fake news should look in the mirror first". Quartz India. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• "Indian TV Media's Blatant Endorsement of Hyper-Nationalism Is Shameful". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• "War, the final solution for Pulwama? It's not a video game". https://www.hindustantimes.com/. 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
• "View: Truth is first victim in India-Pakistan conflict". The Economic Times. 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• "Reporting Balakot: the truth of a pantomime war". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
• Tripathi, Salil. "​​How the fog of war has blinded journalists to their roles". The Caravan. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite web}}: zero width space character in |title= at position 1 (help)

I know that The Wire is unreliable to a large degree for these stuff but do others think that a line can be sketched using all the above? ∯WBG^converse 06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

To what?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Satellite imagery and counter claims

There is this section that states that satellite imagery shows no significant damage however it would be misleading to not tell the reader that the Indian side says that "intelligence agencies have evidence, in the form of imagery from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), showing that the four buildings, identified as targets, were hit by five S-2000 precision-guided munition (PGM) fired from IAF’s Mirage-2000 fighter jets." From: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/radar-imagery-confirms-4-buildings-in-jaish-madrasa-were-hit-official-5607623/

Also this from first post:- "Independent satellite imagery analysis conducted by Nathan Ruser of the prestigious Australian Strategic Policy Institute concluded that there is "no apparent evidence of more extensive damage and on the face of it does not validate Indian claims regarding the effect of the strikes".

However, 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." Source:https://www.firstpost.com/india/eyewitnesses-say-indian-air-strike-on-balakot-killed-dozens-of-terrorists-including-former-isi-agents-6182671.html

Since IAF has directly replied to the Nathan Ruser claim and it is in many media sources, I think the radar 'evidence' must be included in the article too. What are your views?

Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We should put both sides claims in yes, attributed of course.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)