Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike

Infobox "belligerents" doesn't make any sense
The infobox presently has the Pakistan and Pakistani leaders in the right-side column. This doesn't make any sense, as the attack neither actually hit Pakistani state targets, nor was it intended to hit them. If we go by the intended parties in this conflict, the right side columns say "Jaish-e-Mohammed (alleged)" under "Belligerents" and perhaps list some of the chief militants of JeM, especially if there's evidence Indian intelligence expected them to be there at the time of the bombing; on the other hand, if we go by the actual targets, it should say "None" under "Belligerents" and not lkst any commanders. In either case, however, we should list "None" and "0" under "Units involved" and "Strength", respectively. What definitely doesn't make sense is the present wording which implies the target was the Pakistani military. It is true that Pakistan subsequently retaliated in the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, but that's a different subject with its own article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But they were still in charge. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In charge of what? An empty forest with no one it? The trees that got hurt? Also, you reverted multiple edits by me, some of which were basically minor copyediting jobs or minor expansions of the content based on the given sources, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe are remotely controversial. You can't just revert edits and claim they require "consensus"; you need to also explain what specific objections you have. I understand the infobox revert but not the revert you made to my changes to the body. Was this an accident, by you, in an attempt to just revert my infobox changes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do that (read WP:ONUS, and wp:brd), and as an example, a commander is the person in command, that is what it means, not that they were a target or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can do what? You're not making any sense, and also not responding to my questions. If you don't have any specific objections to my NON-infobox changes, I am going to reinstate my changes. They were really quite minor and I am flummoxed as to what there even is to challenge; this has the smell of WP:STONEWALL all over it. WP:BRD clearly states to only revert when necessary, and only if you can't make improvements yourself; it also states be specific about your reasons in the edit summary. I've seen 0 evidence of you even making an attempt to do any of that. WP:ONUS is about verifiability, but you haven't even made any specific claims about the verifiability of my edits, or even given any specific reasons why you dislike them (besides those in the infobox)! This is thoroughly unsurprising, since my body edits were extremely minor edits, all already verified by the pre-existing sources. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ONUS and do not wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which claims did I make outside the infobox which you feel are not verified? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no commanders listed as belligerents, only India and Pakistan and their respective airforces. No person is named (in the infobox). Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I fully concede that you have made your objections known about the infobox changes, but you also reverted my changes to the body. This is the last time I will ask this question myself: do you have any concrete objections to the non-infobox edits? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See below. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Below where you flatly refuse to engage? WP:BRD explicitly says it is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter, yet that is exactly how you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way this article is a comprise that tries to please both sides, do not try and shift the emphasis. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how my edits do that? Your comments are so vague I have trouble understanding what you are even talking about, but I suspect you might need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I am about to go out, hopefully others will. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't how Wikipedia works. WP:BRD clearly states that it is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter, and that reverters should be specific about your reasons in the edit summary, and you have failed to provide a reason for your revert to my non-infobox changes, and are completely refusing to even attempt to explain your non-infobox-related reverts. You are very obviously engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence. This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again. Thus I was trying to head off any edit waring. We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue). Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few? We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence."


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


 * Then why did you kick it off again, over a complete frivolity? You can't kick off a dispute and then claim it was to prevent dispute—you are the one who initiated it, take some responsibility! Anyways, your argument amounts to "this page should never change because some people's feathers were ruffled in the past", and is especially laughable when the edits being challenged are as minor as they are.
 * "We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue)"


 * Finally an actual, substantive discussion of my edits, instead of meaningnless vagueposting. Lead with this next time.
 * If you already know they are human, why does adding the word change anything? Anyways, you concede it's not a major issue (though that has hardly stopped you from somehow trying to transform it into one).
 * Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few?
 * Did you read the source? No, of course not, because you are using WP:BRD expressly as it is not to be used, as means of freezing articles, and thus did not do your due diligence. I changed the wording from Some Western diplomats to Western diplomats in Islamabad because the latter is, verbatim, the wording used in the source, whereas the former is not and is unspecific, besides being bad style (the reasons why I changed it). I cannot imagine that even the basest far right Hindutva ideologue who uncritically believes every word that drops from Modi's mouth would find my wording to be more controversial than the prior wording—if anything, it necessarily limits the scope of the involved officials even more, to just those in Islamabad—so I am once again amazed you are challenging it. It is simply, verbatim, the wording used in the source.
 * "We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings)."


 * The reason I made this change is precisely because of the prior existence of exactly that sort of contradiction. In your preferred version, the article reads "Villagers from the area spoke of four bombs striking a nearby forest and field around 3 am, damaging a building, and injuring a local man... lThe local hospital officials and residents asserted that they did not come across any casualty or wounded people.}} I was confused by this, as anyone would be, because how did the villagers/residents both report the bomb injuring a local man and that they did not come across any... wounded people? The apparent contradiction revolved by using slightly more specific wording, which was what all my edits (outside the infobox) were trying to do: they identified a local man received some bruises and cuts, but there were no "real" injuries (and thus no one went to the hospital). This is clear from my version, and completely inexplicable from yours, without tracing down what each source said, as I did. That is the whole and entire reason I mentioned specific injuries/damages at all. And there is no contradiction in my version if you understand what the phrase "other than" means.
 * Finally, re: the infobox, did you see Vanamonde's comment below? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which source says there was no injuries or damage? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. Reread please. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its what we are talking about, this edit []. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That parameter makes about as much sense as using "infobox military conflict". I think it's use makes sense given the use of military force in the territory of a different sovereign country, but perhaps infobox military operation might be better suited? I have no strong opinion, but the parameter itself is a distraction, discussing this requires discussing the framing of the entire infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a much better solution, thank you. Using Infobox military operation didn't occur to me, but that's obviously the most appropriate infobox here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024
On February 26, 12 Mirages took off from multiple air bases, crossed over into the Pakistani air space and carried out attacks on the JeM terror camp. IAF pilots dropped five Spice 2000 bombs, out of which four penetrated the rooftops of the building in which the terrorists were sleeping. The attacks were carried out at 3:30 am and within a few minutes after dropping bombs on their targets, the IAF jets returned to their bases.

The aircraft used in the attack belonged to the No 7 and No 9 squadrons of the Indian Air Force and included the non-upgraded planes as the upgraded Mirages of the No 1 squadron did not have the air-to-ground strike capability at that time.

The weapons: Apart from IAF’s highly-skilled pilots and the Research & Analysis Wing’s (RAW) accurate intel, India spread out a line of weaponry and aircraft from its arsenal. While Mirage 2000 were used to drop bombs on targeted sites, a set of other Mirages with Su-30MKI combat aircraft kept the Pakistan air force planes away from causing any hindrance or launching any counter-offensive. Docaseem.srivastava (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Jamedeus (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

 * 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)


 * ❌ 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?
 * Yawkat (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer WDYT? Yawkat (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)