Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes

Requested move 2 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Kashmir airstrikes → 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in India → 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes – Most sources describe like this, multiple locations are mentioned, other such articles have this like titles Proper title.-119.160.101.101 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Updated after first oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.103.136 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Kashmir is disputed territory (see Political status of Kashmir) and is not officially accepted by the UN as part of India. Since the airstrikes were confined to Kashmir, the terminology "airstrikes in India" would indicate Wikipedia's acceptance of Kashmir as part of India. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok I’ve updated the request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.103.136 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the nomination has been revised, I will support the form 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested change in Infobox
Strength of JF-17 stated as "25" has not been stated by any credible source and as such the number of aircraft used should be removed. As India claims Pakistan's use of F-16s, F-16's (Indian claim) should also be added. Also, in the "Casualties and losses" section, under "Pakistan's claim" 1 Su-30 has been stated, Pakistan has not officially confirmed the shoot down of any Sukhoi. As such it should be corrected. "Friendly Fire" section should be removed because the cause of the Mi-8 crash is still being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheer Asghar (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 April 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... It was a big event, if India's alleged strikers in Balakot can have a page despite being debunked then an article where its proven Indian jet was shot down should be allowed to exist.

Wikipedia should be neutral, and not pandering to one state. --2A00:4802:A8D:D800:6593:1EC3:F64A:77D5 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Page was restored per Deletion review/Log/2019 April 7. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole page is based on wrong propaganda by indian govt Anonymousindiankashmiri (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
Seems overly reliant on statements by the Indian and Pakistani governments. Should made better use of independent sources. Is anyone other than Wikipedia referring to this as a "tactical victory"? VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotection applied
And I may up it to extended confirmed, if needed. We will not tolerate edit warring on this page. I declined the RfPP on this, but now I see this was a mistake. Please tread lightly and use the talk page often. El_C 23:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
Under the United States section it is mentioned that: "However, the United States Department of Defence clarified that it was “not aware” of any such investigation that was conducted".

Can anyone correct this section since the information for the above statement comes from Indian media named Hindustan Times.

Washington Post has also claimed that the above information is only Indian media claim. There has been no counter claims made by anybody from USA. From the source Washington Post itself:

"Indian media reported that a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of any investigation. The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report."

Hence, either the above controversial statement should be removed or if it is to be retained then it should made more neutral by writing that "Indian media reported that the United States Department of Defence clarified that it was not aware of any such investigation that was conducted. However, Washington Times reported that Pentagon or state of department has not made any public statements to counter Foreign Policy report." 85.154.75.116 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As written, it seems adequately sourced and neutrally phrased. If additional sources become available, this should be revisited. In the interim, feel free to pursue a consensus for different wording here on the talk page and resubmit a new edit request once the consensus is established. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr here the Washington Post source clearly claims that the line (which User:85.154.75.116 highlighted above) belongs only to Indian media (Hindustan Times). There has been no public denial or rejection of the report by any US officials. Hence it is not neutrally written. It should at least be mentioned that the above claim is made only by Hindustan Times. While Washington Times claims that there has been no public denial or rejection of the report as Hindustan times claims. 5.162.59.60 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post
Hey All Washington post has stated that the Indian media only suggested and reported that U.S department was not aware of it, so why putting under U.S Aftermath, i don't get it. Or even if you are putting it under U.S aftermath then atleast tell that Indian Media stated not the U.S itself, when we have Washington post like credible source which literally said that it was Indian media who said U.S is not aware of then i guess no need to add or even if adding please refer to it as Indian media. We have to be true. Right?? "Indian media reported that a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of any investigation. The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report." It is a better version to add, rather then just telling that U.S is not aware of it, it seems the whole criteria look funny. Hasnaat27001 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Not aware of any such investigation" and "no public denial or rejection" don't seem substantially different to me. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what i am saying, i said it is Indian media who stated and Washington post has literally stated that it's Indian media then why problem in stating that it was Indian media who stated? ali (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a claim by one newspaper, and needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what i meant and it's Indian newspaper right? So it's better to say India claimed or else Indian media claimed rather than saying U.S department as a whole stated. And also the spokesperson of U.S department said that why haven't spokesperson not been added. This article is not even was picked by any credible international sources like reuters,bbc,nytimes,abc,cnn,usa today,new york post, rt news, fox news and only been cited as Indian media in washington post outlets. I think i have made my point now, nothing would change for anyone but the quality of this article will get better L (T) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with changing "However, the United States Department of Defense clarified that it was “not aware” of any such investigation that was conducted." to "The United States Department of Defense neither confirmed nor denied Foreign Policy's report." with sourcing to the WaPo. Does everyone agree this should be done? VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yess sure please, it seems good adding under U.S. Statements. Sure please add that one. I agree.Has (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I thought you would have changed it, could I now? Has (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019
Change the "Casualties and Losses" box to list only Pakistani losses in the left box and only Indian Losses in the right box. Reasoning: it lines up with the Belligerents box above and follows other Wikipedia standard belligerents boxes.

Change the "Casualties and Losses" box to reflect Pakistani Losses as "None" and Indian Losses as "1 MiG-21 shot down, pilot (Abhinandan Varthaman) captured; 1 Su-30MKI shot down (Pakistani Claimed; Indian denied)" Reasoning: currently the Mig-21 loss is listed as a loss for both side- which is impossible. Therefore, the losses should reflect the contents of the page (for example in the section titled "Airstrikes" no mention is made of Pakistani losses and all references confirm an Indian Mig-21 shot down with conflicting reports on if a SU-30MKI was shot down). 134.223.230.152 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sources to expand

 * Pak lie exposed by India Today TV: Pakistan flew F-16 jets to attack India -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * State Department Reprimanded Pakistan for Misusing F-16s, Document Shows by US News -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Topics Missing
Operation Bandar & Operation Swift Retort Details aren't mentioned. Knowiunderstandit (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Wolfagain1
What you are restoring has been already explained as problematic on edit summaries. 1) a quote is undue, 2) the NY Times source has been misrepresented, 3) The see also section includes nothing which hasn't been linked on templates.

So why you are making misleading reverts? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User Aman Kumar Goel is removing referenced material from the article. He should not behave like a biased person. Wolfagain1 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked Aman Kumar Goel to stop doing vandalism and come to talk page but his sock is reverting my edits even on talk page. Wolfagain1 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * you remained blocked for edit war so please do not remove references and do not twist the facts. Plus do not add hate content. Wolfagain1 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree that the Pakistani military declarations represent obvious jingoism and have no place in an Encyclopedia. The NYT article is also clearly misinformed about India's military equipment. MiG-21s were upgraded with latest technologies and they performed well against F-16s in exercises. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Casualties section
The Casualties section should be changed to include 'neutral' assesments of the damage done to either side. Right now it seems like both sides are making baseless claims. Under the neutral section, it should be written that India lost 1 Mig-21 and helicopter for example, and Pakistan suffered no casualties in the air. Then both nation's claims like the F-16 and Su-30mki should be written.

Re12345 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any 'neutral' assessments of the damage we can access?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

India lost one su 30 mki which was crashed in indian occupied kashmir, snd Pakistan lost no sir craft, including f16, which was confirmed by producing company themselves. 2 piolots were arrested by pakistan one was wing commander abhi nsndhsn, second was an Israeli pilot. Anonymousindiankashmiri (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Add how Indian claim was rejected by the US
Add how the Indian claim of downing an F16 was rejected by the US according to multiple sources. MrSenpaiWarrior34 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I recall it was just some unnamed employees making unofficial statements, if not proved an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020
139.167.214.221 (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC) it was an indian victory not pakistani
 * 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
Change Result from Pakistani victory to Stalemate. No specific objective has been achieved by either side. Both lost one aircraft each.. 117.216.109.77 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Jack Frost (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
Please remove the term "Pakistani victory" in the infobox. It is unsourced, not affirmed by the article and was repeatedly pushed by only a single editor. 183.83.146.63 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

New reverts
Would you explain why you have been edit warring on a page under 1RR by using ambiguous, inadequate, and incoherent summaries especially after getting reverted? Explain clearly what exactly you found wrong with the removals of recent additions, so as to have a meaningful discussion. Restoring disputed content in toto by making partial objections (?) isn't really how you should be conducting yourself on a page under DS. Shankargb (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it under 1RR? Also, the headings are there so that different incidents are not conflated, as it was edited it read like the 14 February 2019 convoy attack was carried out by India in response to it. The Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrike are separate incidents, so we separate them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also point to wp:brd, once you were reverted you should have come here, not revert yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Contest deletion
I am not sure what the rationale is for deleting it. I am unsure what facts and figures are wrong, nor what needs to be added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

missed the target but claiming intentionally missed to cover up the failure
I don't know what is the logic behind that? FoxtAl (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's much like your lame excuse for failing in exam "I could've written well but I decided not to; I don't like someone judging me FoxtAl (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone of you allow anyone to edit 9/11 article page to add Taliban's official statement saying "We instructed not to cause huge damage on Pentagon building; our intention is to show the US that we can strike the most sensitive installations of US" - that's how illogical it sounds to me!

The airstrike section is highly biased much like a pakistani military press statement FoxtAl (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not say "missed the target but claiming intentionally missed to cover up the failure", what are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ass you mean "Pakistani officials stated that their fighter jets were able to lock onto the target with great accuracy but they were ordered to drop their bombs in an open space where there was no human presence to avoid any human loss or collateral damage. According to Pakistani officials, the strike was meant to demonstrate Pakistan's capability to do anything but they did not wanted further escalations" well firstly we say it is a Pakistani claim, not a fact. Secondly, it does not say what you think it says, and yes it is possible, as many militaries try to avoid civilian casualties. It may be BS, or it maybe true, we do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

When we don't know the exact reason then we should better do not spread false narrative by a party involved; I've removed the press statement of pakistan military/Gov without losing the core of information -

"On 27 February 2019, Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Pakistan Air Force had conducted six airstrikes at non-military targets in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.[22][23][24] Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said that the strikes were meant to send a message to India.[25] The PAF jets entered into Indian air space over Jammu and Kashmir's Poonch and Nowshera sector to hit targets.[19][26]"  - this convey the event

"We could lock on with great accuracy but intentionally missed to cause no human casualty" - On WHAT they accurately locked on? Interestingly this statement is released by a state which had

1. Previously denied the presence of Osama Bin laden until caught him just 500 meters away from their military academy in Pakistan

2. Said by the state which is still (2021) in FATF grey list since 2018 for terror funding

3. In 2019 their PM had to confess in US that they still have 30000-40000 active terrorists in pakistan - That state is claiming "we Intentionally missed not to harm human lives!!" so what authenticity you see in their statement??

Moreover the part I removed does not affect the narrative; it still have - "the strike was carried out, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's statement that the strikes were meant to send a message to India"  -  FoxtAl (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That can be said about every Indian or Pakistani claim in the article. And we attribute this claim (like all the others).Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So should we also remove all claims that are just India saying something without independent cooperation? I am happy to start, and only have verifiable facts.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I stand by my word; NO OFFICIAL STATEMENT AS A WHOLE; the one I've removed was pure biased and illogical "We locked on with GREAT ACCURACY but intentionally missed it not to harm human lives" and you're arguing to retain it!! -  FoxtAl (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it was not an official statement, then who made it? It is not biased and illogical, it is a claim, and we say it is a claim. Just as much as India shoot9iong down an f-16 is a claim (and we mention it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I said " The statements issued by pakistan can't be included as a whole" - "We locked on with GREAT ACCURACY but missied it NOT TO HARM human lives on ground" - What is the logic in it? On what they were locked on WITH GREAT ACCURACY?

Also removal of this doesn't affect the narration hence why I removed it -FoxtAl (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not know, and that does not matter, they claimed it, and we do not give the whole statement. They made a claim, we have no more reason to doubt it than India's claim of hitting a terrorist camp.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait! Only now I've noticed that while you are arguing to include pakistani statement as a whole; you've swiftly removed details from Indian claim from this - "According to Indian Air Vice Marshal RGK Kapoor, the Pakistani airstrike missed their intended target, the bombs were fell in Indian army compounds and didn’t cause any damage" to this - "According to Indian Air Vice Marshal RGK Kapoor, the Pakistani airstrike missed their intended target." -WELLDONE! Do you have any reason for that? -FoxtAl (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I had to do a rollback, as there were too many intermediate edits. But "the bombs were fell in Indian army compounds" is grammatically incorrect anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As a responsible editor would you correct the incorrectness or would you remove it? - FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time for others to chip in, as this is not about me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree! For that this section is created FoxtAl (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting some user here wants unilateral posting of talking points to reflect only 1 side. While commentary by the opposite side is presented as fact without necessity of review? Wikieusar (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FaxtAl is clearly an Indian with personal biases trying to push a narrative to his liking.

Hindustan Times isn’t a “reputable source” as they’ve never had their sources verified nor are they an “independent” as they're an Indian run news company who obviously have bias in the conflict.

I agree with everything Slatersteven has said. Mahadaalvi (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets start with Dawn - as they are being Pakistani newspaper it's obvious that they would push pakistani narrative here just like Hindustantimes in your POV. Also Dawn isn't a "reputable source" nor are they an “independent” as they're an Pakistani run news company who obviously have bias in the conflict. —FoxtAl (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

September 2021
Good day, please convey your objections here before reverting or changing the content, Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A 4-month old bold, well-versed need not teach others how to edit Wikipedia. samee  converse  05:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason, how old on wikipedia doesn't count and a parameter of how good the editor is or doesn't make his contributions reasonable by default, what you contribute matters —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're very quick to jump to assumptions. samee  converse  06:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I made reasonable edits with clear edit summary unlike "some editors" who swiftly change content/template with edit summary which sounds innocent, as here . —Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hai,, regarding this change , actually what is the need of this quote?
 * 1) It is already stated as "Pakistani officials stated that their fighter jets were able to lock onto the target with great accuracy but they were ordered to drop their bombs in an open space where there was no human presence to avoid any human loss or collateral damage" in the sentence which is not different from the quote you are trying to add i.e "Secondly, we decided that there be no loss of life or collateral damage in our engaging of targets," Major General Ghafoor added. "Our planes locked targets, then in open air we carried out strikes," he continued. "We locked all targets with accuracy, and when we had option to fire, we acted responsibly from a safe distance. We have capability to do anything, but we don’t want escalation. We don’t want to go towards war," he asserted" —actually what is the need of mentioning same thing again and again?
 * 2) Cite new/web/book/ etc have many field that including author's name, publisher etc, while some are required for the source to be called as a reliable source; while other fields are optional, one such is quote, we can add quote from the source if we want to include additional details, here the details you added is already presented clearly in the preceding sentence, so I think it's unnecessary. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation/Repetition/Spelling Errors Under "United State's Response" Subheading
{} = Mistake - = Correction with explanation as to why

According to Foreign Policy journalist Lara Seligman, U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter asserted that the US has recently completed a physical count of Pakistan's F-16s and has found none missing. One US official also disagreed with India's claim that usage restrictions disallow Pakistan from employing F-16s in military encounters with India.[62]

{The Washington Post,}

- This part needs to be deleted. The sentence is about a Hindustan Times report, (which has already been mentioned) not a Washington Post one.

Indian newspaper Hindustan Times reported that a United States Department of Defense spokesman claimed that he was "not aware" of any such investigation that was conducted and stated, "As a matter of policy, the Department does not publicly comment on details of government-to-government agreements on end-use monitoring of US-origin

{defence}

- “defense” is incorrectly spelled “defence”

articles."

{[63][64]}

- Source [63] is for the next sentence, not this one needs to be removed. - Source [64] is the actual source for this sentence.

However, The Washington Post reported that like the Pentagon, the State Department has yet to issue any public statement on F-16 count.[65]

{On the other hand, according to The National Bureau of Asian Research, "The Modi Government’s public mischaracterizations of the February 2019 Balakot airstrike and subsequent air skirmishes, including subsequently debunked claims of a destroyed terrorist camp inside Pakistan and India’s downing of a Pakistani F-16 jet, have already raised questions in the United States about New Delhi’s credibility and communications strategy in the midst of an exceptionally dangerous regional context".[66]}

- This is a new paragraph. It needs to be separated from the last one. Mahadaalvi (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022
Can we move the map to the infobox? Re12345 (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. The only map we use for conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir is the CIA map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A glance over the articles in this template indicates that not the case. Re12345 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

For anyone doubting the Missed the target intentionally, Pakistan Airforce released the Missile cam of the H-4 SOW
there's a missile cam footage of the H-4 SOW bomb. Search up H-4 sow Missile camera and the video will be there on YouTube Xtreme o7 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , You need to add a reference/source for everything on Wikipedia and you tube is not a reliable source (see WP:RS).-Y2edit? (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * YouTube is not reliable unless it's the official Pakistan Airforce Channel

I'm giving the link to the official briefing and the H-4 Sow Missile cam footage was obtained from it. Search Operation Swift Retort mujahideen aflak part 2 (Pakistan Airforce briefing) that footage was literally obtained from that. stop being biased why would i even show incredible stuff here? I'm showing facts that's the point and I'm noticing a lot of Anti Pakistan bias so kindly pls take a look at the briefing and tell that Indian guy to stop calling every Pakistani news "propaganda" Xtreme o7 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We need RS to analyse it anything, see wp:primary and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
Tidy420 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC) It was Pakistan victory because abhinandan was shot down and captured

It was Pakistan victory because abhinandan was shot down and captured. Tidy420 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

1RR
There have been more than one claim this page is under 1RR, I can find no mention of this on the talk page or under the DS page. So can someone provide some evidence for this claim? Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Details about how PAF executed airstrikes
I found articles by the renowned Kaiser Tufail in which he has discussed about Operation Swift Retort in detail particularly on how the initial airstrikes were executed. I edited in some of the details but someone reverted them citing it "misleading" for some reason. So if they aren't letting us edit in some crucial parts of the Airstrikes at least add them yourselves. https://pakistanpolitico.com/pulwama-two-years-on/

https://defencejournal.com/2019/07/10/pulwama-from-bluster-to-a-whimper/ Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for factual details. What is you explanation for the content you removed in the same edit? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First article isn't an opinion piece. Moreover, kindly link the Wikipedia policy regarding use of opinion pieces backing your claim. Since Kaiser Tufail is himself from the Pakistan Air Force not to mention his Npov, his research articles are Rs i believe the details regarding the airstrikes must be included rather than restricting the whole article to point out who was the aggressor. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you on about, Pr0pulsion 123? It's staggering that even after a couple years of editing on the project, you manifest a conspicuous lack of appreciation of its core content policies. That is unacceptable, and I strongly advise you to take the opportunity and proceed to peruse the very policies that you have cited without a speck of comprehension. Your first source cannot remotely be taken for anything other than an opinion piece: the writer is categorically airing his views, not reporting factual details; and the source itself appends his credentials at the bottom. Those are the hallmarks of an opinion piece. Moreover, the source does not even have an 'about us' section that introduces readers to the site or to its editorial staff, making it dubious. Given your sheer ignorance of the policies, you should not even be making edits to these contentious articles to begin with until you demonstrate understanding of the policies to save everyone's time. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You could've just linked WP:SECONDARY to make things clear. No need to get so snappy. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Invoking policies is self-defeating when you don't appreciate what they enunciate or regulate. It betrays your insouciance and an abdication of due diligence to boot. Case in point: you adverted to NPOV and RS and still purported to be oblivious to "Wikipedia policy regarding use of opinion pieces", when both those pages touch on the foregoing. That isn't a discerning approach to editing in a contentious topic area, and you will attract attention for all the wrong reasons. My digression in consequence was to give you a salutary word to the wise, not undue criticism or irksome rejoinder, as you seem to construe it. What makes it all the more imperative is the fact that a number of editors have continued to flag issues with your editing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Former Pakistan Air Force Chief's new statements regarding the engagement
Air Chief Marshall (R) Sohail Aman in a series of statements during a ceremony claimed that PAF could have shot down 8 Indian jets but restrained from engagement due to diplomatic level issues. Could this be added in the Pakistani claims? https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1031046-paf-could-have-downed-more-indian-planes-in-pulwama-crisis-ex-air-chief Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say not, it is one mans opinion and was not made at the time. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are here. Could you please fix the content fork/POV fork here, contrasted, e.g. with 2019 Balakot airstrike.  We can't let false Indian claims to be given breathing room here when they are not in the Balakot article. Also, noting this for user:RegentsPark  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the existence of this article, or perhaps I was one upon a time, but have long since forgotten. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fix the fork, what do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean the Indian claims, which have been refuted in the reliable sources, and are stated to be so refuted in the 2019 Balakot airstrike article, appear without comment here, thereby creating two versions of information. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2023
On 27 February 2019, Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs...collateral damage.[neutrality is disputed]

Under the heading airstrikes, please remove this neutrality is disputed tag, as it's being incorrectly used. Solblaze (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rewrote the sentence and removed the tag. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The most decisive argument here was WP:CODENAME, which holds that military operations should not be titled by their code names except in cases where those code names are by far the most popular term. In this discussion, many editors agreed that the proposed title of "Operation Swift Retort" did not meet that threshold (either by citing WP:CODENAME directly, or by expressing the same underlying rationale that the guideline describes). Supporters of the move argued that "Operation Swift Retort" was the WP:COMMONNAME, but other users expressed concerns over the methodology of the source analysis that yielded those results, so I don't see a sufficiently strong COMMONNAME claim to overrule CODENAME here.A few users also proposed the alternate title 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in Indian-administered Kashmir, but this title was argued to be less aligned with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes → Operation Swift Retort – WP:COMMONNAME Solblaze (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)" — Relisting.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Yes, It should be changed --2400:ADC1:477:8500:F083:69D3:49F:D7EC (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Potentially controversial move, needs more community input.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Pakistan has been notified of this discussion.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Operation Swift Retort can be the name of any operation anywhere. Americans in Iraq had similar names.  The proposed name is unencyclopedic as it gives no geographical information.  It is unecyclopedic as it is grandiose and a form of one-upmanship if not also verbal saber rattling.  I shall not be responding, so please don't bother with Google n-grams and the like.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * PS I just noticed that the page was begun by an IP from India. So, it is possible, that the current name bespeaks some mischief at work, i.e. as Jammu and Kashmir is the name today for a portion of Indian-administered Kashmir, Kashmir being a disputed territory, keeping the name legitimizes the Indian nomenclature in an indirect way.  I don't know that this is the case, and perhaps I am overthinking this; but if it is (the case), then the page name could be changed to 2019 Pakistani air reprisal in India-administered Kashmir or somesuch.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles on Wikipedia are named after their commonly known operational codename. For example, Operation Infinite Reach. Would the average reader be more able to recall "Infinite Reach" or "1998 American airstrikes in Khost and Khartoum"?
 * "Reprisal" seems vague and possibly editorialised from an Indian POV. This operation consisted of airstrikes. By that logic we'd have to rename 2019 Balakot Airstrike to 2019 Balakot air reprisal as well, which for the same reasons sounds inappropriate.
 * If Swift Retort gains widespread opposition, I'd say it's better to settle on 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in Indian-administered Kashmir, which although a mouthful, is objectively neutral. Solblaze (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Support for 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in Indian-administered Kashmir.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: It is a military operation with a common name. Wikipedia should not have to invent verbose titles that aren't commonly in use simply to fulfill an imaginary moral obligation. The same criticisms about the lack of geographic details and grandioseness can be applied to Operation Okra, Operation Impact, Operation Shader, Operation Black Thunder, Operation Blue Star et al. No reason why this is any different. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:D09D:9555:422E:1765 (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody is going to understand it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see my support above for alternative phrasing. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is your primary concern, it is pertinent to note Operation Swift Retort yields 18,000 Google results, while 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes yields a mere 3000. Solblaze (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparing pages for a "code name" versus a descriptive title is not how we apply Commonname. Apples vs oranges. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Moving to 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in Indian-administered Kashmir. Editorkamran (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (from notification at Wikiproject India) Support moving to Operation Swift Retort per (i)WP:CONSISTENT, the above examples (Operation Infinite Reach, Operation Okra, Operation Impact, Operation Shader, Operation Black Thunder) show that such titling is the norm on wikipedia. A comparison between this article's views on WP with google search trends shows that the title is also (ii)WP:RECOGNIZABLE and (iii)WP:PRECISE. And also Oppose moving to 2019 Pakistani airstrikes in Indian-administered Kashmir since it fails WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. The 2019 Balakot airstrike is not titled 2019 Indian airstrikes in Pakistan or 2019 Indian airstrikes in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Operation Infinite Reach is also not called 1998 American airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. If the particular location of the airstrikes must be reflected in the title—which I don't think is required since this particular military operation already has a name—they were carried out in the Jammu region which this proposal erases entirely from the title. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: The search engines today are powerful enough to ignore the inclusion of spacetime data in the title and instead rely on the uninformative but official name of the operation.  Fayninja (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename for now. I am not sure what the claim that "Operation Swift retort" is the commonname is based upon. Searching through the current reference section of the article, that name is used by only two Pakistan-based newspapers in their headline + 3 other sources that are talking about a chest-thumping animation movie by that name (maybe someone can do an analysis of the bodies of these sources). And while, I was unable to find high-quality scholarly sources about the topic, the best "recaps" I could find (eg Stimson, The Diplomat) talk about the series of events in descriptive terms under the rubric of Balakot strike/crisis. So I prefer retaining the current short descriptive title for now (rather than "Operation Swift Retort"), which parallels that of 2019 Balakot airstrike (rather than "Operation Bandar"). If in a few years, secondary sources on the topic have settled on a a name for the individual events in the Balakot crisis, we can re-evaluate. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Was thinking of closing this, but decided to vote instead. I noticed no one brought up WP:CODENAME, which explicitly asks us to not use operational code names; Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article. As such, the current title is more concise and precise than the other titles proposed here, while being in line with policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We also have to keep WP:CONSISTENT in mind - per WP:CODENAME, well known operations can be named after their codename (also see Infinite Reach example above). Swift Retort yields 18,000 results, while 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes yields a mere 3000. Solblaze (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Exceptionally well known operations can be kept, and "swift retort" does not rise to the level of Operation Barbarossa etc. You are using WP:CONSISTENT as WP:OTHERSTUFF here, just because some titles are improper does not give liberty to violate policy. I have replied to your claim of the numbers above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose; per WP:CODENAME. Codenames should only be used when RS overwhelmingly calls it that, such as Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Barbarossa. "Swift Retort" appears to only be used by Pakistan-based sources; worldwide coverage says "2019 airstrikes" and as such we should keep it as that. Couruu (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023
Why to list Indian and Pakistani claims in the Casualties and losses, when we have neutral assessments? Please remove them 2400:ADC1:477:8500:F083:69D3:49F:D7EC (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2023 (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. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
Contradiction of cherry picked statements from an opposing member of a different political party "The captured Indian fighter pilot was released on 1 March 2019, out of fear of an India retaliation." EchoCharlie is making it as it was some fact when its just Indian media harping about it. Also immediately later it states it was done as a gesture of peace. Sources used are the Hindu and India express how can the allegations from Ayaz Sadiq who naturally wants to defame the government in power at the time be taken as some reliable source note Indian media is highlighting it no other reliable or neutral source is backing it up as its not some legitimate evidence the MP is claiming that "Army chief General Bajwa was perspiring and his “legs were shaking” when Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that India would have attacked “that night at 10 pm” if Pakistan did not release Abhinandan" how does this unreliable statement make it to the lead in the first place? Opposing MPs regularly try and defame their politicsl rivals and this does not deserve to be in the lead. Is it Indian users trying to save face and downplay the capture of their pilot by claiming India forced the release ? Its undue for starters and definitely pov pushing. Needs to removed from the lead paragraph. Mrdabalina (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Mrdabalina (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2023 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

More than 350 casualties claimed by PAF pilot
In a leaked phone call conversation between PAF College, Lower Topa, Lecturer Hafiz Farooq Ahmed Khan and his former student, PAF pilot Hassan Siddiqui, Hassan Siddiqui mentioned that the media was not reporting what actually happened there – claiming that there had been more than 350 casualties (Indian). Overjoyed with the performance of his student, Khan mentioned forwarding the recorded audio to dozens of his relatives and friends to ‘highlight the spirit’ of the Pakistan Air Force. However, he suffered a blow when the Air Intelligence Agency of PAF noticed the call. Later, Khan was arrested in July 2019 and court-martialed under Section 71 of the PAF Act, 1953. He was accused of committing an offence that may be useful to the enemy. He was charged with unauthorized possession of documents and leaking the coveted information on social media. Could this information be added to the Airstrikes section? NEWS Source : [| Daily Pakistan] & Call recording : [| Soundcloud] King Ayan Das (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do any non-Pakistani sources report this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No! I try to search any non-Pakistani sources report although I find other Pakistani sources report but not non-Pakistani King Ayan Das (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then its propaganda, so lets leave it out. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * okay! King Ayan Das (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Section to discuss Pak MP's statement
The captured Indian fighter pilot was released on 1 March 2019, out of fear of an India retaliation. The Pakistan Muslim League (N) MP, former Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan, Ayaz Sadiq in a speech to the Pakistan Parliament told that "Army chief General Bajwa was perspiring and his “legs were shaking” when Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that India would have attacked “that night at 10 pm” if Pakistan did not release Abhinandan". However, Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman later clarified that there was no pressure on releasing Abhinandan, he was released as a "gesture of peace". Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one MP's opinion, thus may well fail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As per his statement he was witness of the incident. (You can't insist to get more witnesses, can you?!) Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well yes as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we need multiple good sources to support this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you seen that it already have two inline citations? Do you want me to overcite it? There's several youtube cideos of his speech there why dont to find those and hire an urdu expect to verify whether what is said is rightly stated in the cited source or not? Juding from your curiosity, i think it would be worthy for you. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was adding one MP's statement. Moreover the statement was made in their parliament not on an election campaign! Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First one removed this (Mar4D) called it "fictional" while video of his speech is one google search away, he also stated in summary "sadiq's speech was not addressing COAS" - pushing his WP:POV WP:OR. Then you Slatersteven came. Your first summary was - WP:NPOV, second summary was wp:false balance, 3rd one was wp:onus. It proves you're not sure, but you both want to remove this cited content. That's biased! Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it proves you need to get wp:consensus which you do not have. This is one MP, who is not even a minister. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you have WP:consensus to remove it three times with different wiki policies as you're not sure? Slatersteven, i don't care whether the Pakistani MP was a minister or not, whether he was elected or selected, whether he's rich or poor. That's none of my concern at all. All I added was what he said in the parliament. It's wonder to me why you didn't jump into this when the other editor removed this cited content calling "fictional." Do you think removing cited content calling fictional is right for Wikipedia?? Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not need it per wp:brd and WP:ONUS, it's down to you to get a consensus for the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to remove it as well, when there's already a talk section created, but you still removed that. Thats why i already said you both wants to remove it. That's it. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it's worth noting that other editor was against including it in the lead. But you wanted to remove it, why? There are many statements on this article, POV pushing Pakistan army official statement and statements of imran khan. But you didn't seem to have any oriblem at all. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not how it works, you do not re-add it until you have consensus. You did not have consensus when you re-added it.

Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You could've thought like this before editwarring with me by removing cited content with an editor who calls this "fictional". But what did you do? I may not be here to put my points. And i think i dont need to overstate that it would be biased. Someone who knows wiki policies and support another who removes cited content with edit summary stating "fictional" and doesn't hesitate to push POV and OR in edit summary, how can i expect that it would be neutral at all?? Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Echo1Charlie, please note pushing a WP:POV and violations of the WP:3RR rule on this page are not at all acceptable. The reasons have been explained and you'd be well-advised to take stock of what Slatersteven mentioned above. The statement of the opposition MP, Ayaz Sadiq, holds no weight because a) he's not a government spokesman, and; b) in case you're not well-versed in Urdu, he was mocking the Foreign Minister's handling of the crisis, not the army chief ("legs shaking, perspiring") in an attempt to gain brownie points in parliament. This is what opposition MPs do, as distasteful as it sounds. This of course was spun by the media laundry in India like anything, and misreported to give the impression it was critical of the army - which did not happen in Pakistan, and is nonsensical in itself. In fact, Ayaz had to clear the air after the Indian media went ballistic.
 * Any other assumptions, as to the motivations behind the Indian's pilot's capture and release, were speculations sourced to Indian editorials and have already been rubbished by the army. We do not report speculations, but stick to facts and evidence.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. "The statement of the opposition MP, Ayaz Sadiq, holds no weight" - you are not the one to decide that.
 * 2. "in case you're not well-versed in Urdu, he was mocking the Foreign Minister's handling of the crisis, not the army chief." - I'm quoting the source. You're trying to force your WP:OR on me, which is against Wikipedia policies.
 * 3." In fact, Ayaz had to clear the air after the Indian media went ballistic." - you can add that alongside his statement I added, clarifying that he actually meant government not armed forces. Or let me add it. Let's clear the air.
 * 4. "We do not report speculations, but stick to facts and evidence" - Foreign Policy magazine's report regarding Pakistan's F-16 count quoting an "unknown" pentagon official is not a fact, but it's still here. At least I'm not quoting an "unknown" Member of Parliament. Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * what's you opinion on point 3 I added up there ? Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "General Bajwa was perspiring and his “legs were shaking”" sounds a lot like political propaganda. Keep in mind that Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
I want to edit this as this was a Pakistani Victory 2400:ADCA:10D:EE00:E9E6:354F:B3DD:E54 (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to ask us to do it, and you need to get wp:consensus and you need wp:rs staying it. It ain't gonna happen. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

False Foreign Policy Article of U.S. Counting of F-16s Used as Reference
Four references are used for the last line at the top, which states, 'US count of PAF F-16 fleet found no F-16 was lost during PAF engagement with IAF.' The Foreign Policy report is the primary reference, and the other three references ( NDTV, Bloomberg, The Time ) basically use the Foreign Policy report as their source. First of all, this Foreign Policy article is not confirmed by U.S. defense officials, so it can't be considered an official statement by the U.S. government. Furthermore, in an article published after the Foreign Policy report by the more reliable newspaper The Washington Post, it was clearly mentioned that 'The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report.' This article was written in April 2019. From that date to the present, the U.S. government has not published any official report on the PAF's F-16 counting report. So, can I delete the line 'US count of PAF F-16 fleet found no F-16 was lost during PAF engagement with IAF'? King Ayan Das (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If its not official its not a primary source. Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually want to point out that in all three other articles, the publishers used headlines like '..., U.S. Magazine Says'; '..., New Report Says'; '... : Report' instead of specifying that the U.S. government published a PAF F-16 counting report. Even in the Bloomberg article, it was specified that this Foreign Policy report was cited by two unidentified U.S. defense officials. . It's a fact that, from that date to the present, the U.S. government has not published any official report on the PAF's F-16 counting. So, based on an article cited by unidentified U.S. defense officials without any official confirmation from the U.S. government, whether this counting was actually done or not, isn't the line 'US count of PAF F-16 fleet found no F-16 was lost during PAF engagement with IAF' misleading or likely to cause the building of a false narrative? Therefore, can I edit this line to 'As of now, the U.S. government has not published any official report on the PAF's F-16 fleet counting'? King Ayan Das (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It still does not make it a primary source. Slatersteven (talk)