Talk:Balakot/Archive 1

Irrelevant content
This article contains irrelevant contents. Please move the stuff about the persons into separate biographical articles. Moreover, there are unsubstantiated claims without proper citations. There is a lack of basic information about the location, (e.g. altitude of the town, population etc.) and more heresay than credible facts.

141.35.150.141 17:18, 30 October 2007


 * I have added the above comments from the article page to talk, I have also added citations to the article
 * Pahari Sahib  09:16, 22 December 2007 (GMT)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balakot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718001117/http://www.nrb.gov.pk/lg_election/union.asp?district=73&dn=Mansehra to http://www.nrb.gov.pk/lg_election/union.asp?district=73&dn=Mansehra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
I have been listening to the gov. officials and private channals about the destruction made by the recent earth quake having the magnitute of (7.8). There is a big, I mean a huge differnce in betweeen the offical injuries and casualties.the gov. Is telling very small figure than the actual. The gov. is announcing the figure of 70-80 thousand deaths in the kashmir earthquake.but the fact is there aremore than five three lack (0.3 millian) deaths inthat reajon.this is calculated on the basis of the information given by the public who had lived there once and are injured by the earth quake.

202.38.62.6 07:33, 19 October 2005

THE INHABITANTS SAY
"there were cities having population more than five lack in this reigon,and as the concrete houses colapsed, we see only a few of them,so let us know were are those people, do the gov. saved this number of injured people?".

the answer is NO '''1.The gov. have the opinion about the late notification about the desaster........WELL...As i live in the LAHORE CITY I came to know the immense desaster's stregnth but out responsible gove did not. '''2.The gov have the opinion that they do not know the location of faroff villages and towns (having immense population)........WELL...A government which has no knoeledge about the countrey towns and villages, WHAT IS THE RIGHT OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO RULE IN THE COUNTRY. : so there are three possibilities of missing people.


 * 1) the gov. ejected them before the earthquake.


 * 1) the gov. rescued all the injured and engraved the dead ones in this  short period


 * 1) they are still under the rubbles,and the gov is unable to pick them out,so they aretrying to misguide the public.

Offcource the first two posibilities are unimagineable. now yhink about the reason for the third one,WHYis the gov trying to mislead.

THE ANSWER IS 1. They already recived the aid and wishin for more foriegn aids 2. If they dont tell the exact evaluation to the public they will not know the amount of finance needed to rebuilt the efected areas. 3. In the result of above stated two reasons and combing the element of curruptoin factor with its full intensity the aid will be used for the fullfilment of officials own private accounts.

In the result the public will get the peanuts

202.38.62.6 07:33, 19 October 2005

This is a geographical Stub
Better to add information about Balakot, not the personalities. If some one wanna add some info about any personnel, please form a new page only.--119.153.150.2 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

REGARDING THE 2019 IAF STRIKES
User Abecedare has added a 2019 IAF strike section, however the user is showing a bias towards India, by portraying India's point of view on the matter as more factual than Pakistan's, by not discussing Pakistan's 'contention' to the matter in detail, and by providing a tweet as a source, a tweet that could very well also be photoshopped. The source in question is as follows: 'However, a deleted tweet from the Pakistani source appears to have confirmed the location of the strikes as Balakot.[19]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umer23459 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI Balakot is mentioned by the official spokesperson of the ISI, the DG ISPR.


 * Link to DG ISPR tweet -> https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377
 * Link to web archive of the DG ISPR tweet -> https://web.archive.org/web/20190226043211/https:/twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377
 * Link to Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet. https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr
 * Link to web archive of Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet https://web.archive.org/web/20190226073835/https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr
 * hope it helps. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The details of the 2019 Balakot airstrike belong in that article, not this one. See section below.Bless sins (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

- The article now mentions both the Indian and Pakistani sides of claims. Therefore, a neutrality has been maintained and the section has been well-cited. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the city of Balakot, not the airstrikes. Information about technical and military claims belongs in the other article not here. Giving too much information to Indian airstrikes, where much is still disputed, is WP:UNDUE. We can mention them, of course, without giving it undue space.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE
It is WP:UNDUE to include too much information about recent strikes in this article. This article is about the people of Balakot, their culture, their religion, their economy and infrastructure etc. Focusing on a strike that happened today, and where information is evolving rapidly, is a violation of both WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You conveniently skipped "History" when listing the above items. The Balakot incident is a major international event and it deserves its own section in the Balakot article. This is entirely due. The world has come to know the name of Balakot due to the airstrikes. I dont know what you mean when you say "too much" but a section on the airstrike not undue.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be some mention of the incident, hence I summarized it while removing the bulk of it. But the current mention is given too many details, that belong in the article about the airstrike, not this one. Consider, Mumbai, a well-written article. The 2008 Mumbai attacks are given a total of two sentences, and those sentences are from the perspective of the city of Mumbai, not from the perspective of India-Pakistan conflict. Even Ajmal Kasab is not mentioned by name.
 * Similarly, what is the relevance of mentioning Mirage 2000 jets, 1000 kg payloads, Vijay Gokhale, Asian News International, CRPF, Pulwama etc? All of that information can be on the article about the actual event, not here. Hence, I'm summarizing it again. Please discuss before reverting.Bless sins (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have WP:Censored the entire 2 sections with several paragraph and made it a 1 line section. First define what you mean by "Too much" and why you think a 1 line section is justified. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire two sections were WP:UNDUE. "Too much" is the mention of details in the article that have nothing to do with Balakot. See section below.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the two seperate sections is "Too Much" in your personal opinion. How much is "good enough" according to you and why ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Terror training camps
The WikiLeaks had leaked several documents in which it had indicated that Balakot has had several terror training camps where Jihadis are trained to conduct terrorist strikes in US and other countries. One of the documents state - "Detainee has admitted to volunteering to fight Jihad against the US and its allies, remaining after the events of September 1lth to continue to fight, and receiving training from the JEM. Detainee received training in Balakot, PK, a location known to house a training camp that offers both basic and advanced terrorist training on explosives and artillery. Detainee is a probable member of the JEM and as such, if released would likely gravitate back to that Islamic extremist group. The JEM espouses Jihad against the US and is directly supported by Al-Qaida."

The above content that is being removed on flimsy WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. please use this thread to explain why this material should not be added to the article. IMHO this is similar to a case of industry. If a city has a notable factory that provides employment to the inhabitants, it does deserve mention in the geo article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is not an "industry", and articles on cities often don't devote entire sections to criminal activities. For example, Mumbai barely has any mention to the Bombay underworld. Additionally, Indian officials claimed that the target was "far away from any civilian presence" and in the middle of thick forest. So it is unlikely it was providing "employment" to Balakot residents like you mentioned.


 * Secondly, the information here has not been confirmed. It has been disputed by the New York Times which questioned the existence of such a camp.
 * "Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country. (subscription may be required)"
 * And another article:
 * "The view that little had been damaged was supported by military analysts and two Western security officials, who said that any militant training areas at the site, in the Pakistani province of (KPK), had long since packed up or dispersed. Balakot and its surrounding area hosted numerous militant training camps until 2005, when a powerful earthquake struck the area, devastating its towns and villages. As international aid groups poured in to provide relief, militants packed up their camps and went elsewhere, to avoid being detected. (subscription may be required)"
 * Hence it can be mentioned very briefly with the Indian airstrikes, but it can't be devoted an entire section.Bless sins (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The History of Mumbai article should include a mention of underworld. I believe it exists already, If not please feel free to add it there. This is not a reason to WP:CENSOR reliably sourced content on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. please desist from removing the content unilaterally without proper discussion. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have discussed the information. Rather, you have not sought consensus to add information suddenly to the article. You are adding information to the article that has nothing to do with the city of Balakot: Mirage 2000, Vijay Keshav Gokhale, back and forth statements by the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministries etc. That information all belongs in 2019 Balakot airstrike, not here.
 * It is not "censorship" to move information to a more relevant article.Bless sins (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Terror training camps have been known to be on this locations for more than 15 years. The place has been covered in many reliable sources talking about its terror camps. The article has to have a section in history (if not in economy) about it. Again the strikes are a major international event and it deserves its own separate section which links to the article on the topic. You have not shared what is your preferred version of the the content that you would like to see in the article. please share. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Again the strikes are a major international event and it deserves its own separate section which links to the article on the topic." I have agreed with that. You are making a straw man argument.
 * I have also covered the militant camps in a higher section. If the allegation is from 2004 then it should not be placed any lower in the history section.
 * My preferred wording is my change here. I have not blindly reverted, rather carefully worded incorporating edits made by other editors, while summarizing the content.Bless sins (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When I asked you to present your version, you were expected to present it here on the talk page and not inject it into the article. The title of this thread is camps, so lets use this thread only for the camp discussion, I have created a seperate thread for the IAF strike section. So please respond accordingly to each section. In the Version you supported there is absolutely no mention of any content for the terror camp section. So is that your preferred version of this section ? Please correct if I am mistaken.  -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Content supported by DBigXray
"The region is notorious for having several terror training camps. The Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist group used to operate from the region. The WikiLeaks had leaked several documents from the United States Department of Defense in which it had indicated that Balakot has had several terror training camps where Jihadis are trained to conduct terrorist strikes in US and other countries. One of the documents state - 'Detainee has admitted to volunteering to fight Jihad against the US and its allies, remaining after the events of September 1lth to continue to fight, and receiving training from the JEM. Detainee received training in Balakot, PK, a location known to house a training camp that offers both basic and advanced terrorist training on explosives and artillery. Detainee is a probable member of the JEM and as such, if released would likely gravitate back to that Islamic extremist group. The JEM espouses Jihad against the US and is directly supported by Al-Qaida.'"

Content supported by User Bless sins
 "Some security analysts state that the Balakot area had hosted militant camps until the 2005 earthquake. According to WikiLeaks, a 2004 United States Department of Defence interrogation report stated that Balakot had 'a training camp that offers both basic and advanced terrorist training on explosives and artillery.' However, these analysts say that the militants left after the earthquake to avoid detection by the international aid groups arriving to provide relief."


 * Please clarify why you are moving this inside the earthquake section when it is notable enough to deserve its own subsection.
 * Please explain your WP:Synthesis how you can claim that "However, these analysts claim" ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this higher because the history is meant to be in a chronological order. 2004 obviously comes before 2011. New Balakot City contains developments much more recent.
 * What exactly is the synthesis with "However, these analysts claim"? The source says "militants packed up their camps and went elsewhere, to avoid being detected, analysts say."Bless sins (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2019
"Please change/remove the following two statements from the introduction section of this article: Now it is known for terrorist training camps established by Government of Pakistan. They create terror in India. These two statements seem to have been added after the recent political conflict involving Balakot. It is unfair for the entire Balakot region - without any substantial evidence and citation - to be referred to as a terrorist training region. It is a beautiful region, a famous tourist destination, and has already suffered enough from the natural calamities in the past few years. As international community is helping to bring the life back to normality, such unsubstantiated claims would only contribute to destroy the region further. I request the editors to either remove the two statements altogether, or provide some substantial citations for the readers to vindicate the claims made in those two statements. Currently these two statements do not hold any validity. Thank you" 157.182.105.1 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Done – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Content supported by DBigXray
"The Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted a strike on terror camps allegedly located in Balakot on the early morning hours of February 26, 2019. Twelve Mirage 2000 jets carrying over 1000 kilograms of bombs were reportedly used for the attack. This was apparently done in response to the attack on CRPF (Indian Reserved Forces) in Pulwama, India on 14 February 2019 in which over 44 CRPF personnel were killed.

India's foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale stated that the IAF had conducted strikes against a Jaish-e-Mohammad training camp, in retaliation for the 2019 Pulwama attack which he said was orchestrated by the group. He claimed that the strikes were motivated by a 'lack of Pakistani action on terrorism' combined with 'imminent danger' from terrorists. He claimed that the strike resulted in large casualties for Jaish-e-Mohammad, and that the target was chosen to minimize damage to civilians following intelligence reports. Earlier, the spokesperson of the Indian Defense Ministry said that he had no information about Pakistani allegations of airspace violations. Business Today India reported that the area around Balakot had been cordoned off by the Pakistan Army and evidence such as the dead bodies were being cleared from the area so as to make it possible for Pakistan to deny India's claims of heavy casualties.

The efficacy of this attack has been contested by Pakistan. According to official sources, the quick scrambling of Pakistani Air Force (PAF) jets resulted in the Indian aircraft retreating across the Line of Control, in the process releasing their payloads. According to these sources, this included a fuel dump in free fall in an open area resulting in no casualties or damage. Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar's brother however admitted that a JeM camp that trained students for jihad was bombed, in which an ISI colonel and a JeM trainer were killed."

Content supported by User Bless sins
"The Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted a strike Balakot on February 26, 2019. The Pakistani military disputed these reports. Indian intelligence claimed that the airstrike was against a Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp, and was in response to the 2019 Pulwama attack. Western analysts questioned the existence of such a training camp.

After the airstrikes, Indian intelligence claimed to have evidence of 20 casualties. However, Associated Press journalists who visited the area on 26 February and saw craters and damaged trees, but no evidence of any casualties."

Bless sins, as you have stated above, You do not dispute addition of a seperate section with the title IAF air strikes. So both of us agree that a separate section on the strike is needed here. The disagreement however is on the amount of content that should be added into the section. Please understand that the precedent here is to include a summary of the entire Main article along with a link to the main article in the articles which deserve a section talking about the main article. The version you are supporting is a highly redacted devoid of meaningful information. yes there is a separate article on the topic, details will go into that article but this article has to include a decent summary of the main article and the reader can decide if he wants to read more by going to the main article. This is what is being followed on wikipedia. I hope you will agree to this, if not kindly present your objection along with wikipedia policy based justification for your objections. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DbigXRay's version is better than Bless Sin's but whilst the former is biased towards India; the latter is undeniably towards Pakistan.
 * I wrote the prose at the main article and we need to summarize far effectively. Will try:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not at all necessary to include the entire summary of the 2019 Balakot airstrike article, rather only the parts that pertain to the city of Balakot. What do IAF Mirage 2000s have to do with the city of Balakot? Similarly talking about 1000 kg payloads, Vijay Gokhale, Asian News International, CRPF is not relevant. You are making this article about the Indian airstrike, even though its supposed to be about the Pakistani town.Bless sins (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . There is no need to duplicate the airstrike stuff here, especially the training camp is not even in the city. The city's name is used just as a location marker. I recommend getting rid of the whole section. Perhaps a one-line mention would be good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There has been no discussion or activity since here so I will summarize content and gauge other editors' reaction.Bless sins (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bless sins Kindly accept my apologies for delay in responding due to real life commitments. Please do not proceed with unilateral changes to the disputed texts without discussing and getting a consensus here. Kautilya3 it will be helpful if you can provide your own preferred version of the content. The version by Bless sins is a highly redacted whitewashed version of events that is simply unacceptable here. User:Winged Blades of Godric we are still waiting for your preferred version. its been a while and we would like to proceed. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for any content, including the content you put in. Also what exactly is "whitewashed" in my version? What details in your version that I removed are actually removed to the city of Balakot?Bless sins (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the coordinates of the airstrike, it seems the location is in Bala Kot Tehsil not Balakot. Perhaps there is a confusion regarding the two places.Bless sins (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unintentional removal of content?
there are three pieces of sourced content you removed, but was it intentional or unintentional? If it was unintentional, perhaps it can be restored immediately to the article by an admin if we are both in an agreement.
 * Some security analysts state that the Balakot area had hosted militant camps until the 2005 earthquake. However, these analysts say that the militants left after the earthuake to avoid detection by the international aid groups arriving to provide relief.
 * Western analysts questioned the existence of such a training camp.
 * Adding the date date of 2004 to the quote about WikiLeaks.

If you have objections towards any of this content, please state below.Bless sins (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I Dispute this. The same selective cherrypicking was also done on the Airstrike page and was reported by a user on the talk page after which I had corrected it. You are misquoting NYT. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you respond in a point-wise fashion?
 * What exactly is your dispute with the 1st point? Then what is your dispute with the 2nd point?
 * Surely, you can't have a dispute with the third point. Adding a date that the WikiLeaks report is from 2004 can not be controversial, correct?Bless sins (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the articles used as ref above. it is unfortunate that you dont see the problem I pointed above. Please share the exact quotes from NYT and others below. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be not responding to my point about adding the 2004 date for the WikiLeaks. Since you have at no point explicitly objected to that, I'll go ahead and make a request for that edit.
 * Regarding the other two points, I do not always have access to the NYT articles as they sometimes require a subscription. You seem to have already read them, because above you said that I was "cherrypicking", which is something one can't know without reading the original text. Therefore, please point out the exact problem with those two points.Bless sins (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since my last comment above, DBigXray has made no discussion on this page. Yet the editor has continued to revert my edits Bless sins (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, DBigXray removed the NYT-sourced content without any explanation about its removal on the talk page. The last comment about DBigXray was on March 6, yet he/she continues to continuously remove the content. After every removal I ask for an explanation and none is given on this talk page.Bless sins (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are blatantly misrepresenting the NYT quote. You have claimed you have no access to the NYT quote and yet you claim it is sourced to NYT ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally engaging on the talk page after reverting many times without any discussion. Please explain how exactly I'm misrepresenting the quote.Bless sins (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please read WP:BURDEN When you are adding content from a source NYT here, the BURDEN is on you to prove that the content is reliably sourced and produce the quote in support of your content. instead you are asking me to explain ? Your line that you are repeatedly adding into the article is a blatant misrepresentation of the NYT article, I asked you to provide the quote from NYT from where you sourced this content and instead  you are going on in circles. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NYT sometimes requires a subscription, depending on one's IP address. Therefore I can sometimes access it while other times can not.Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was able to access NYT: "Balakot and its surrounding area hosted numerous militant training camps until 2005, when a powerful earthquake struck the area, devastating its towns and villages. As international aid groups poured in to provide relief, militants packed up their camps and went elsewhere, to avoid being detected, analysts say." What was added: "The Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist group used to operate from the region. A 2004 United States Department of Defense document stated that there was a JeM training camp in Balakot. However, according to analysts, the militants left Balakot after the earthquake in 2005 to avoid detection by the international aid groups arriving to provide relief" This was as close as I could get without violating WP:CLOP. What exactly was "whitewashed"?Bless sins (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Censoring content with misleading edit summaries
Bless sins what has been here for weeks ? you are simply censoring reliably sourced content with misleading edit summaries.

For example, in this edit
 * 05:00, 16 March 2019 You mentioned in the edit summary that "" but you simply removed the quote entirely that you are repeatedly trying to remove with a new excuse every now and then. There are other examples too. Please refrain from such behavior on a controversial topic area -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion regarding you repeated removing NYT-sourced material is already above: Talk:Balakot. I have been waiting for your response there for weeks. Please respond there.Bless sins (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally there is nothing wrong with changing quotes to prose. There is no reason to have a large blockquote in this article. That is WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please show me with a dif where you have added prose from the quote ? as I pointed above in the diff all you have done is removed the quote in its entirety. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I indeed removed the quote in its entirety and replaced it with prose. That's how Wikipedia is written: most articles don't contain any blockquotes at all, and those that do only contain it only for special reasons. Your use of it in the article violates WP:UNDUE. So I replaced it with the following prose: "A 2004 United States Department of Defense document stated that there was a JeM training camp in Balakot." (I added this prose in many edits you reverted, including the latest one) Most of the quote you added is irrelevant to this article. For example, "The JEM espouses Jihad against the US and is directly supported by Al-Qaida" might belong in Jaish-e-Mohammad or Al-Qaida, but not in Balakot nor United States.Bless sins (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"The local people varied as to the purpose of the facility. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, whilst some claimed of it being an active Jaish training camp, others asserted it to have been a mere school for the local kids and that such militant camps used to exist far earlier." Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, you also removed the following content. This material has been in the article for weeks. Can you explain why you removed it?

Article stability
It seems that have been recent back and forth reverts in the last hour. I propose leaving the article in the state it has been for weeks now until consensus can be reached. Such a state is disagreeable to me too, as I have inserted a disputed-neutrality tag in the section I'm disputing, but that is currently in discussion above, so I did not revert back to my version. Of course, DBigXray disputes that version too but for different reasons. I think that is a better solution and a compromise than edit-warring back and forth. . This would not be a permanent solution, but only a temporary one until the dispute is resolved.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

DUE and UNDUE
Folks, let me clarify my position. A Wikipedia article is required to summarise everything reliable sources say about a topic. Since Balakot's name appears in various discussions of terror camps, airstrikes etc., all of them need to be stated, but only one sentence summary of each. Unless the locations being talked about are inside the town limits of Balakot, no further detail is needed here.

An entire section summarising 2019 Balakot airstrikes should go. It is totally UNDUE. The precise location of the airstrikes has been mentioned as "Jaba top". Jaba is its nearest village. Other than the fact that Balakot is nearest well-known town to the camp, there is no other connection to the city. So, why are we putting it here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What do you propose that summary be?Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One possibility of a sentence would be:
 * "The Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted airstrikes near the village of Jaba, close to Balakot, on February 26, 2019. India claimed to have targeted a Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp killing 'large number' of militants; Pakistani officials denied any casualties were caused, and said the alleged target was a madrassa."
 * Bless sins (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be quite adequate. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)