Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 1

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)

"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)

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, AnupamTalk 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed the same now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:26, 28 February 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-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * ✔️ Its in the news section on the main page. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion
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 ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)

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)
 * - 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-- D Big X ray ᗙ  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 -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Skirmish"? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)

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. &#x222F; 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)
 * 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. &#x222F; 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)

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)

can we have an article on Abhinandan Varthaman on Wikipedia


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 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)
 * , 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 :-) &#x222F; 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)

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 Here he also mention on his Twitter page that there is no proof that F-16 was actually shot down  94.185.14.112 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray here is a Pakistani media Ary News covering the issue, 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)



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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Seperate unrelated incident. See the discussion thread few threads above  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is it protected?
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. GABgab 22:39, 28 February 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) 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) 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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Geneva Convention
Editor 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..... &#x222F; 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)
 * , 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Take your ridiculous synthesis elsewhere. Random YouTube videos are not reliable sources. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


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

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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. &#x222F; 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)

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. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you also look into the edits made to the |2019 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)

plz provide proof. wikipedia need proof. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:18, 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.  M L talk 14:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , nope. NYT as a highly acclaimed and neutral source has a unique significance. By the way, nice to see you:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 14:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

❌ 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , also can you kindly chime in over this thread, just a few ones up. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , also can you kindly chime in over this thread, just a few ones up. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)

Fake news and war-craze


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? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To what?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry?! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What edit are you asking to be made?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * all above link are write.ans is yes line must sketched Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

fake news are from both side so plz be neutral. Dont bleam one side. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please join in [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: A similar article can be created for the current India and Pakistan situation on the lines of these articles:
 * Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict
 * Media coverage of the Iraq War
 * Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War
 * Media coverage of North Korea

It should be done now if possible if such an article doesn't already exist. (I have posted this comment on the above link too. Posting here also since not sure where would be better) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of these commentators really understand what is going on, given that even the world's leading media houses don't. The fake news is a product of the situation, where two nuclear powers speak an "almost formalised language of escalation and de-escalation" in order to communicate strategic red lines to each other. The people that need to get the message are getting them. The rest of us have fake news. An article on this topic can only be written a couple of years down the road, if not a couple of decades. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why some of us (more then once) have said this article should really be deleted (or at least not edited) until this is all over.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This op-ed from the editor-in-chief of Huffington Post India explains at least part of the problem: Aman Sethi, Balakot: Govt Leaves It To Friendly Media To Provide Strike Details, Huffington Post, 26 February 2019. But I don't think even he thought about what the government should be doing instead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

right. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:24, 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)

yes of course it must include infact many report prove that there is building which is used by terrorist.some local people said that when airstrike occure pak army cover all area and they saw 30-35 bodies in ambulance.some source said that mobile phone of doctor who are there also taken by army.but pakisthan offical said that it is fake news. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok so i would put that up later(if someone hasen't) since im on my kindle right now and its a paint to use this experimental browser.Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Soapboxing
Please be aware of wp:soapbox, any further comments that are unrelated to improving the article will be deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 March 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)
 * being discussed  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:15, 4 March 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)


 * I support restoration of elaborate reaction of countries. Quartzd (talk) 10:00, 4 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)

This is what an F16 engine looks like- from previous USAF crash images:

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/F16-military-jet-crash-Cessna-South-Carolina-Moncks-Corner-589630.jpg

This is what the IAF Mig21 Tumansky engine looks like - from previous IAF crash images:

https://static-news.moneycontrol.com/static-mcnews/2018/07/Mig-21-Jet-770x433.jpg

The lines on the casing/engine cladding are generally concentric on the Tumansky engines - not along the length as shown in the images by Pak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.10 (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Heading of the sub-section to be changed to "Aircrafts shot down"
I think its confirmed now that Pakistan too has lost an F-16 aircraft on 27th Feb 2019. So the heading of the sub-section should be changed from "Aircraft shot down" to "Aircrafts shot down". -Yoonadue (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The plural of aircraft is "aircraft" not "aircrafts" so does not need to be changed, but note nobody so far has provided a reliable reference of any Pakistani losses. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. The news now confirmed because

1)part of AMRAAM missile found. 2)Missile serial no. Confirmed by american official. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Typos in the text
Second Paragraph of opening had this typo: "Local residents[23] and and the Pakistani military" Could someone with the authorization please fix the double "and"? I believe this was a proper post to put in a talk page discussion. As it was my first time using a talk page, however, I am not sure if there is a better place to put minor editing comments. I would be much obliged if one of you wonderful moderators informed me if so. Thank you. Everett Breezewood (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Do we have a better source for this?  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * there you go, . 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. 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)
 * Slatersteven and Kerberous with more reports by times, firstpost, and Indiatoday. I think this piece of information is now ready  to be included in the article. Swamy is one of highly respected journalists and his article should be enough to confirm this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As many of us have said, no Pakistani or Indian source can be considered reliable for any information about this conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , absolutely no. Don't let me indulge into making a list of weird tall claims made by the Pakistani media in the course of this week, all of which need to be inserted if we are walking down this road.
 * We are not touching anything unless it has been reported in both the sides of the border or it has been picked by an international media. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are stating those sources we are bound to provide their rebuttal.
 * And, if we continue like this, the article will devolve into a mess of claims and counter-claims, lies and counter-lies. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And, if we continue like this, the article will devolve into a mess of claims and counter-claims, lies and counter-lies. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And, if we continue like this, the article will devolve into a mess of claims and counter-claims, lies and counter-lies. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Indian claims that a Pakistani F-16 was shot down
Hi there,

I would like to give my input on the information presented in the article about a Pakistani F-16 being shot down. Whilst I agree that both Indian and Pakistani claims regarding the issue should be presented (which has been done correctly in the article), neutral POVs and sources should also be provided. For example, the renowned website https://www.bellingcat.com/ has presented its own analysis of the full information provided by multiple different Indian and Pakistan sources regarding the wreckage of a downed plane here: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/02/falcon-vs-bison-verifying-a-mig-21-wreck/

The source concludes that from the information provided, no F-16 was downed and the wreckage depicts the wreckage of the downed Mig-21 Bison in concurrence with Pakistani claims.

As I am unable to add edits to this article at the present time, I would appreciate if someone else would add them instead.

Many thanks, Hummer431 (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BellingCat is reliable (see a few sections above) but part of India's claims also include the missiles that were shot; which (supposedly) can be only fired from F-16.
 * I won't be inserting any of these stuff unless a large time span has relapsed and the media has a clear idea about what's transpiring exactly. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't be inserting any of these stuff unless a large time span has relapsed and the media has a clear idea about what's transpiring exactly. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi it is not renowned website.many other website same as bellingcat has claim that mig-21 shot down f-16 by r-78 missile and f-16's missile also fond in india which conformed by america by recoards so any other user also want to add this point.so please wait for right time,give netural respone and follow wikipedia rules. Thanking you Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have removed the "not done" template from the above comment and indented it in this edit.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a renowned site. You can check this through simple internet searches. If you dispute this then please present facts and argue this with the Wikipedia administration. Also, this article here: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1920385/1-fact-checking-missile-shown-indian-generals-sold-taiwan/ attempts to refute claims by the Indian media and establishment. However, both sides in this dilemna are to varying degrees agreed to be biased and therefore we are awaiting the confirmation of what is fact and what is merely propaganda. That is why I originally proposed including neutral sources such as Bellingcat who provide significant aid in this regard.

Hummer431 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The IAF Vice Marshal today issued a statement that Wing Co. Abhinandan was the first pilot to shoot down and F16 with a MiG 21. I am sure a serving AVM counts as more credible than a bellingcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:277F:EA29:0:4F:4024:2901 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read wp:independentSlatersteven (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Take the advice listed aboveHummer431 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that an IAF VM is not counted as an "independent observer" but like the Russian Air Force- the IAF requires a confirmed killed attributed to a pilot to be vetted by atleast one other pilot and one other ground observer.

IAF is not trigger happy about attributing kills to pilots either. Bellingcat, like a Finnish observer - can hardly be classified as neutral either. Given almost every country that funds BellingCat uses some variant of the F-16 or a fighter from the F program. So what would count as "Independent" in that case?

Would RT.com count as independent - given it is a Russian media outlet and infact- the Russians have more to gain if the Mig21 is proven inferior because they themselves do not fly that fighter anymore and have been awaiting for other forces to move out of it. Yet RT.com confirms the F16 downed report.

I do not think any country that flies an F16 or any F series fighter would allow an outlet funded by them to accept the F16 downed report- and actually neither would Russian media but they seem to acknowledge it because they know that IAF has stringent norms for attributing a kill to a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.221 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to add : This is what an F16 engine looks like- from previous USAF crash images:

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/F16-military-jet-crash-Cessna-South-Carolina-Moncks-Corner-589630.jpg

This is what the IAF Mig21 Tumansky engine looks like - from previous IAF crash images:

https://static-news.moneycontrol.com/static-mcnews/2018/07/Mig-21-Jet-770x433.jpg

The lines on the casing/engine cladding are generally concentric on the Tumansky engines - not along the length as shown in the images by Pak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.10 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

1)I didnt tag u in my commant.my commant for all users. 2)Issue is not prove any media who is right,who is wrong.our main motive now is to dont send fake news and stop propaganda. 3)All user must follow WP:NPOV and all other rules of wikipedia. 4)I am not robo so sometime mistake happen by me but i always follow rule. 5)try to focus on creating your talk page rather than watch and take out mistake of other. Thanking you! Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * During the battle of Britain both sides inflated or under valued casualties. It is comkon in war for sides to make untrue claims, this is why we need independent verification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't you trust your own eye - every Indian knows what a Tumansky engine does not look like :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.10 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * iagree with you tumansky engine does not look like. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We use RS, not what we know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Struck all comments by Hummer431, a blocked sock. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Samjauta Express Train services resumed between India & Pakistan
Samjuta Express train from India will leave on March 3, 2019. On the Pakistan side, the train will leave Lahore on Monday March 4, 2019 on its return journey.

Source https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-pakistan-tension-de-escalates-samjhauta-express-to-run-from-india-on-sunday-5608112/ Bainsjs2 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Message here and activate this request only after it has happened. Will happen is not good enough to be posted  D Big X ray ᗙ  02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

27th February - Pakistani Counterstrike Own Article
The 27/02/19 Pakistani counterstrike deserves its own article, it was a retalitory military counter-strike against Indian military targets in Indian territory in response to the Balakot strike which resulted in one confirmed IAF MIG 21 loss and 1 POW.

The fact that this counterstrike was aimed at Indian military was confirmed by the Indian MEA and and the IAF, in the statement they confirmed that "PAF bombs had fallen in Indian army formation compounds".

The Pakistani counterstrike of 27/02/19 was/is one aspect of the 2019 Stand off the others being Pulwama and Balakot.

Proton1989 (talk) 23:01, 4 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 . 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)


 * I've removed a few posts below this, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This page is for discussing article content. If you want to tell us all your opinions about either party's motivations for this and that, go write a blog. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Total casualties
Perhaps in the box it should include the total number of casualties counting both sides, civilian and military? Alex of Canada (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its somewhat unusual to include total casualties. Usually casualties are left side-constrained. To be honest, I'm not even sure if the current infobox supports doing that? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets also add, we can only have a total once each d=side has stopped killing the other, and we know they have.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Over
I think its over, no further reports, I know no declaration its over but nothing more has happened since March 3. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Until a reliable source says its over, its not over. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The conflict may be over, the crisis is not [], and this is a crisis that may run.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Indian and Pakistani sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of Indian and Pakistani sources on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at —  Newslinger   talk   07:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2019
300 terrorist are killed 2401:4900:16C8:73BD:283F:37A1:6AFC:DECD (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Source?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  Newslinger  talk   16:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * ✔️ 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)
 * Previous decisions by the arbitration committee have enabled administrators to use ECP. The specific request to protect this page was made at the Admin's Noticeboard for incidents. ECP makes sense, as India/Pakistan topics are very contentious and vulnerable to vandalism and POV pushing. This article especially, as it has accrued more than 330,000 page views in its short existence and is also featured on the highly trafficked main page. Even with ECP, the article is still being heavily edited. The protection level could be dropped once the incident dies down. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you provide me with a link to the request so that I might see what incident resulted in protection. I assume this is not some sort of preemptive protection, which is not allowed. Silas Stoat (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See the discussion here Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is a . Days back, the community had authorized liberal use of ECP in any article about INDOPAK conflict.
 * -I see that you've done this under AC/DS/ARBIPA. Whilst that's valid; GS/IPAK is probably more suitable:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's total crock of shit! Admins gaming the system, abusing the use of sanctions and operating outside the spirit of what WP:EXTENDED is really aimed at. Silas Stoat (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , po-tate-oh, po-taht-oh :) GABgab 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , po-tate-oh, po-taht-oh :) GABgab 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Lay of the PA's and accusations of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal attack? Where? I'm making a general criticism. And it's not bad faith. What's happening is there for all to see, if they look.Silas Stoat (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you were accusing admins of gaming the system; just above. That's the personal attack.
 * At any case, whilst I understand the frustration(s) of not being able to edit the article, the community in it's infinite wisdom has the use of preemptive 30/500 protections and you can always avail the help of edit requests:-)  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A personal attack is against a named individual. I did not do that, so stop accusing me of it. It seems to me that there's an unhealthy attitude on the part of some admins towards pre-emption. WBG, I think you meant 'infinite stupidity', didn't you? Avail myself of edit requests? Haha, very funny. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And, it's indefinite 30/500, so a large cohort of editors are permanently excluded from this article. So much for Jimbo and 'you can edit this page right now, you really can'. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And, it's indefinite 30/500, so a large cohort of editors are permanently excluded from this article. So much for Jimbo and 'you can edit this page right now, you really can'. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention
Suggestion to include "Third Geneva Convention" rather than geneva convention. Also, linking to wikipedia page for" third geneva convention" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwetamits (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I had a look into this, but our article on the Geneva Conventions notes that "Geneva Convention" is the phrasing most often used to refer to the third convention. Also, I don't think the sources have been so explicit as to specify the dispute refers to the third convention specifically, but the idea of the conventions as a whole. I'm not so sure, but what do others think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay.I suggested as Wikipedia is known for detail information. There could be other reliable sources. Shwetamits (talk) 07:42, 6 March 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)

Any one can check out satellite imagery. Khanbaba 2040 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

5 Indian Army Personal Killed + 2 Militants - 3/3/19
5 Indian soldiers and 2 militants were killed on 03/03/19, This should be included in article.

Sources:

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/5-security-forces-2-terrorists-killed-encounter-jks-kupwara-793067 https://kashmirreader.com/2019/03/03/two-militants-five-forces-personnel-and-a-civilian-killed-after-56-hour-gunfight-in-handwara/ https://www.latestly.com/india/news/handwara-encounter-continues-for-third-day-4-security-personnel-martyred-1-civilian-dead-in-gunfight-673477.html

Please kindly include this under the Indian casualties section.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proton1989 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ it is not link with this article. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can understand you have a self-interest to conceal Indian losses and exaggerate Pakistani losses, but this if the Pulwama is included I do not see any reason why this should be omitted, in anycase Indian used the ongoing insurgency/terrorism in Kashmir as a casus beli for the 26th Feb attack in Pakistan, thus it calls with in the scope of this article as it led to increased tension in the stand off much like the Doda Massacre of 2001 led to increased tensions during the 2001 India-Pakistan stand off. Requesting third party neutral opinion on this matter Proton1989 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on content., not users.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It raises the question as to what is the scope of this article? Does it include military encounters between Kashmir militants and Indian forces?Bless sins (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Jaish-e-Mohammed is listed as a separate side in the article infobox. --Silesianus (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If they are a combatant, and if they previous acts are included. But I would point out we are not a live new feed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

India claims casualties not intended?
A member of the Indian government cabinet seems to contradict the claims of Indian media. This should be added to the article.Bless sins (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what claims is he contradicting.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That the airstrikes intended to kill militants in Balakot. He says "We did not want any human casualty".Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I get that, but where is the the point made he is countering, who has said it was and where?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 6 March 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)
 * , 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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, AnupamTalk 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah; let's see. But I strongly disagree about Shiv's branding it to be unreliable. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now this piece, which has been reprinted in The wire. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * and 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. Except that, why you are misrepresenting sources? शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , that piece has been also referenced by the Quartz piece. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * , 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * , see this NYT piece and this WashingtonTimes piece which mentions Sheldon's analysis explicitly. I guess NYT/WT ain't a blog, eh?  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , see this NYT piece and this WashingtonTimes piece which mentions Sheldon's analysis explicitly. I guess NYT/WT ain't a blog, eh?  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * 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, 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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)
 * Great! Consensus has been met. It was a pleasure working with you all. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Consensus has been met. It was a pleasure working with you all. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This topic again is a victim of premature and uninformed analysis. Please see this article from NDTV that refers to the reports BY DFR and explains the problem with it. scroll NDTV -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's quite expected that SAR imagery would lead to more clarifications.
 * But, you cannot ever claim that independent reputed sources (that are referred to in multiple reliable sources) shall not be mentioned simply because some Indian news-report mentions inner source(s) of having evidence that proves something to the contrary.
 * If you have watched these folks, they were the same folks who were running headlines all over the place (hours back), claiming that sources have confirmed Masood Azhar's death before they turned it into a speculation of death and after running that speculation for some time, the hype vanished and they collectively dropped it.
 * So, I don't have much trust over these sources. 250,350,650......every figure of casualty in the media was duly sourced:(
 * At any case, you will note that the reporter has not seen any of those high-resolution-imagery personally. Also, he has written the piece very effectively; emphasising that reliable sources contradict themselves but staying short of accusing NYT/DFR/Nathan to be wrong in his own voice.
 * I would actually prefer that this article be deleted and a ban of at-least six months be enforced to prevent these issues of haziness that surrounds any recent news-event. But since I'm sane enough to not launch an AfD and this article is staying, we need to present all the conflicting narratives with due weight.
 * And, unless and until GOI chooses to release those data, the weight is quite skewed towards these independent satellite data analysts, however wrong they might be in light of their abundant coverage by neutral sources. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , for the amount of difference between these sources, read this report.
 * The one quoted by you (Vishnu Som) mentions an incursion of around 3 to 20 km (beyond LOC) by the Mirages. The one quoted by me steadfastly claims that no IAF aircraft ever crossed the LOC.
 * Then again, both differs with Francesca, who too has sourced it..... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * take a look at this excellent find with images on the thread titled "Damage of Balakot strike by IAF is now visible - Its complete"-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can do better. And, you are now starting to get into weird territories of original research (which has gone horribly wrong).
 * This has been circulating in Twitter for 2 days (less excitement, please) and all relevant experts assert this to be a much old-dated image (prob. during construction phase). The site does not (actually) provide updated imagery, as it claims and instead exhibits old Bing imagery. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric please enlighten me how does sharing a link about satellite IMAGES on the talk page of a related article tantamount to WP:OR. Looks like you are reading something else that is not visible to me, in that page u linked -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Given the indentation of your original reply over this t/p, I assume that your invocation of an excellent find with images was a reply (i.e. a counter) to my stance in this debate about whether to include Sheldon's analysis (where I have been firm on inclusion). And, that t/p thread counters the satellite-analysis in what is precisely the textbook definition of orig. research (vide facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.). I grant that you did not make that post but pointing to that as an excellent find in a rebut is equally OR. Cheers! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Peace, people! DBig, I too took your description "excellent find" to be an endorsement of the other thread. But note that it was pure gossip. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My first comment with time stamp "17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)" is all i had to say about any stance. nothing more.
 * "Sharing the pics" is just "sharing the pics". I have not said anything other than what i just wrote. If you are going to "", then that is your own "wild/OR/etc" assumption, only yours and not mine. Other than "assuming", you went ahead and made a baseless accusation of WP:OR on me, when I never made any claim or original research whatsoever. I suggest you (WBG) should go ahead and strike off your ludicrous accusation of OR and apologize for the same.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which is rather irrelevant, as (as far as I understand it) OR is applicable to articles, not talk pages. I can engage in as much OR as I like here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can do better. And, you are now starting to get into weird territories of original research (which has gone horribly wrong).
 * This has been circulating in Twitter for 2 days (less excitement, please) and all relevant experts assert this to be a much old-dated image (prob. during construction phase). The site does not (actually) provide updated imagery, as it claims and instead exhibits old Bing imagery. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric please enlighten me how does sharing a link about satellite IMAGES on the talk page of a related article tantamount to WP:OR. Looks like you are reading something else that is not visible to me, in that page u linked -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Given the indentation of your original reply over this t/p, I assume that your invocation of an excellent find with images was a reply (i.e. a counter) to my stance in this debate about whether to include Sheldon's analysis (where I have been firm on inclusion). And, that t/p thread counters the satellite-analysis in what is precisely the textbook definition of orig. research (vide facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.). I grant that you did not make that post but pointing to that as an excellent find in a rebut is equally OR. Cheers! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Peace, people! DBig, I too took your description "excellent find" to be an endorsement of the other thread. But note that it was pure gossip. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My first comment with time stamp "17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)" is all i had to say about any stance. nothing more.
 * "Sharing the pics" is just "sharing the pics". I have not said anything other than what i just wrote. If you are going to "", then that is your own "wild/OR/etc" assumption, only yours and not mine. Other than "assuming", you went ahead and made a baseless accusation of WP:OR on me, when I never made any claim or original research whatsoever. I suggest you (WBG) should go ahead and strike off your ludicrous accusation of OR and apologize for the same.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which is rather irrelevant, as (as far as I understand it) OR is applicable to articles, not talk pages. I can engage in as much OR as I like here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which is rather irrelevant, as (as far as I understand it) OR is applicable to articles, not talk pages. I can engage in as much OR as I like here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently the visual spectrum satellite images have more information than our analysts have been able to figure out. NDTV, 5 March . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

MiG-21's record
IAF Says Its MiG-21 Just Scored World’s 1st F-16 Kill Ref -https://www.livefistdefence.com/2019/02/century-of-service-between-them-iaf-says-its-mig-21-just-scored-worlds-1st-f-16-kill.html Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * not independent.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Anything which makes US weapons look bad is not independent as per wiki admins. They will simply refute all evidence given by anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.10 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Recently released imagery data
This may not stand NPOV but was shown in Indian media yesterday:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/radar-satellite-images-of-iaf-strikes-in-balakot-show-significant-damagesources/articleshow/68291137.cms

Just filing it for reference - someone could perhaps get an independent authority to check those exact co-ordinates on the morning of the attack. Bunker Busters were used - so obviously the bunkers wont be completely destroyed. It is no different than an impact of a GBU.

Su 30 MKI Shot down by Pakistan Air Force
Pakistan claimed that it has shot down an Indian SU30 MKI. This has been contested by Indian air force just like IAF claiming that an Indian Mig 21 shooting down an F 16 which PAF is denying. Both sides have failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims. It should be noted that IAF has claimed that 4 to 5 AMRAAMS were fired and an SU 30 defeated AMRAAM Missile. Which raises question that is SU 30 MKI capable enough to doge multiple AMRAAMS which has kill probability of 64 percent in favorable conditions. Some are claiming that the crash of an MI 17 helicopter just 100km away with in 12 minutes of the combat is a cover up to hide SU 30s casualties. While the whole scenario is in question the statements from Indian government of asking for Dassault Rafale to counter Pakistan's F 16s further rises questions of SU 30 MKI's combat capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.130.225 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again we do not need every incident.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You are asking for sources if the topic is related to F 16 shot down. While if it is related to SU 30 shot down you are simply saying "Again we do not need every incident.". The fact of the matter is it is added in the article that F 16 shot down(Indian claim). This qualifies as One-sided reference bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.62.106 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lay of the ABF, the way this was worded I thought this was a new incident, not part of one we already mention.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures of old crashes being shared as IAF plane that crashed
The Hindu : Fact check: Rajasthan, Odisha plane crash images shown as those of IAF aircraft downed by Pakistan Air Force -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:27, 7 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: per above  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:14, 4 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. and. 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. 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. 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)

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)
 * source?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    17:59, 5 March 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)
 * 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.  D Big X ray ᗙ  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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: one sided picture  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Marked this as answered for now as the request seems to be answered.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Grenade attack in Jammu.
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/jammu-bus-stand-blast-explosion-live-updates-jammu-and-kashmir-terrorism-pulwama-pakistan/378223

I think this should be included in 'Other Incidents' section. DoomDriven (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Reuters and journalists denied access to bombed terrorist camp

 * Reuters published today that it has No access to Pakistan religious school that India says it bombed -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2019
second indian jet which was destroyed is su-30 of indian Airforce and was confirmed by INDIA TODAY. Here is the link to india today news confirming the su-30 kill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2NKrHDCZWQ 39.41.174.148 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would wish for a better source then a youtube video.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you have, please make a new request, following the format "please change X to Y". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It is but a claim from Pakistan's side. So far, there has been no reliable report. Indian side has officially refuted such claims. The 30s video was presented by a YouTube channel 'Pakistan Explorer'. DoomDriven (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan to lodge UN complaint against India for "eco-terrorism"... "FIR filed against IAF pilots for bombing trees..."
Maybe a line about this in the article? Seems important!? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Climate Change Minister Malik Amin Aslam said Indian jets bombed a "forest reserve" and the government was undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will be the basis a complaint at the United Nations and other forums. [Economic Times (1 March 2019)]
 * Now, FIR filed in Pakistan against IAF pilots. For bombing trees. No kidding [India Today (8 March 2019)]
 * Pakistan files FIR against 'unidentified IAF pilots' for bombing and destroying 19 trees in Balakot, says report [Firstpost (8 March)]
 * Pakistan registers FIR against ‘unidentified’ IAF pilots for bombing 19 trees in Balakot [Report PTI/The Indian Express (9 March)]
 * "What happened over there is environmental terrorism," Aslam told the Reuters news agency, adding that dozens of pine trees had been felled. "There has been serious environmental damage." [aljazeera]
 * The forestry department filed a First Information Report (FIR) against unidentified Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots on Friday for bombing trees in Balakot area of the country’s north on February 26. [Pakistan Today]
 * Maybe a line or two could even be added to the "aftermath" section in the "2019 Balakot airstrike" article? (though would need to be taken to that talkpage I guess, hmm...) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, best to include it when it's actually brought up in the UN. Juxlos (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Has this been seriously picked up by international media? Note that Indian and Pakistani officials engage in hyperbole frequently.Bless sins (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, lets leave this out till it goes somewhereSlatersteven (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with all above. AFAIK these reports are for domestic consumption. Lets wait and see if they actually follow through and include this after something comes out as a result of this. until then i do not support adding this trivia.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)