Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict: Difference between revisions

Austrian historian (Tom Cooper)

Austrian military historian Tom Cooper says its victory for India

India also shot down pakistan only awac with brahmos

This should be added. Australian war historian Tom Cooper says its victory for India. Military historian s, says India decimated Pakistani bases.

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases/ar-AA1ECG6R

https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12 157.51.224.227 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. This should be added as a claim by third party. Here I see opinion of an American person Brandon J. Weichert is added. So this should also be added. Samsam111 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a third party claim, but an analysis and belongs in the analysis section if added. Prober90 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

we can add this to analysis section as already there are a few comments on the analysis made for each side by analysts etc. It should have more views. Iamgood22 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If he is indeed a reputable historian and analyst, his words do carry weight. Withmoralcare (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why was his analysis removed from the analysis section ? Iamgood22 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps because there wasn't a non-Indian source? Although, CNN-News18 is arguably not a 100% Indian, and what he said is publicly available information on his blog. Withmoralcare (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

He is not a reputable source of information. I have added a topic specifically covering this. He earlier claimed that India successfully targeted Pakistan's nuclear sites, a claim that India, Pakistan, and the IAEA have refuted. He further claimed that two pilots have been captured by India and seemingly gave possible names taken from a meme that was circulating. The Indian government has not claimed the capture of any pilots. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Tom Cooper is not a credible source of information.

First of all, Cooper has recently published an article in the Indian-owned publication, Economic Times, titled “Pakistan couldn't protect its own nuclear weapons': Top air warfare historian Tom Cooper calls India the clear winner” (https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-couldnt-protect-its-own-nuclear-weapons-top-air-warfare-historian-tom-cooper-calls-india-the-clear-winner/amp_articleshow/121161557.cms). India (https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/india-pakistan-nuclear-ceasefire-jammu-kashmir-b2749237.html), Pakistan, and the global nuclear watchdog, IAEA (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/iaea-no-radiation-leak-or-release-from-any-nuclear-facility-in-pakistan-10007208/lite/), has refuted that Pakistan’s nuclear facilities were targeted. Tom Cooper has an agenda that is clear as day and does not belong anywhere on this wikipedia page.

Secondly, in his blogpost “Illusions and Reality” (https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross-b6c), he mentioned that India had captured two Pakistani pilots (Commander/Commodore Chahat Fateh Ali Khan and Captain Syed Qaim Ali Shah). This information is taken from a Pakistani meme that was making light of Indian claims. Chahat Fateh Ali Khan is a comedian/musician known for making satirical songs. Syed Qaim Ali Shah is a former Pakistani politician known for falling asleep. A defence analyst who cannot even bother to ascertain facts using OSINT or just a plain google search is an insult to the profession. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, I mentioned your discussion here, couldn’t believe if it was serious or some next-level satire. Absolutely hilarious JayFT047 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:partisan and wp:rsopinion I just wikify (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You are a pakistani person who thinks that if someone says his opinion against pakistn then he is not credible. There is nothing hilarious. Tom cooper is credible war historian from Austria. Samsam111 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, one could say that he was only mentioning the claims that were made as opposed to endorsing them. He uses words like "supposedly", "reported", and "unconfirmed" while talking about the pilots.

Also, he gave interviews after writing his own article. He did not directly publish anything on any Indian publication/outlet (as far as I know). Also, he did not say that there was any leakage. He was talking about "entrances". Withmoralcare (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Tom cooper is a credible person. So according to you anyone who says a pint against pakistan is not credible. Tom cooper is a reputable war historian. Samsam111 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yet this article mentions “downed Rafael jets” when it’s been unconfirmed as if it’s been confirmed. That guy is a credible source, but you don’t like that since he is not saying what you want to hear Ansurrotho12 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Add the views of more experts like Tom cooper, Military Historian

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12 Sumitdhiman1 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/ Iamgood22 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Australian expert

I am seeing an edit war about the Australian expert paragraph.

A reminder to @An Asphalt, @Mithilanchalputra7 and @Aviator Jr about how WP:BRD works - You made a bold edit to add the paragraph. Someone else objected and Reverted you. Now you both need to get to the talk page and discuss. Edit summaries are not discussions, and we should not be adding the paragraph to the article without discussion Soni (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained it. In the Analysis section, every source used in it, is neutral and third-party. This addition was the only odd one. My objection is the sources that are quoting this "Australian expert" are not neutral by any means. I have no problem with it if you use a neutral source reporting it. An Asphalt (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, he is Austrian not Australian.

Secondly, News18 is associated with CNN, which is a neutral or third party source.

Thirdly, in support I am going to include the paragraph again, remove the other two sources (not the News18 article) and add his original document or the source.

Now, I hope it will not be a problem... Thanks.

Aviator Jr (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

News 18 is still very much Indian and not a reliable source and has been involved in creating hoaxes out of thin air. So, I still have a problem. An Asphalt (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

How can adding original document as source have a problem? Aviator Jr (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no problem with the "original document". I only have problem with the sources reporting it. EVERY other source is neutral. Not a single Pakistani or Indian source is used in Analysis section. Firstly, your addition is not a neutral source by any means and also not credible. Secondly, it throws off the neutrality of the entire section. An Asphalt (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright. It ends here then. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

He gave an exclusive interview to CNN news 18. So they are only going to report it. Iamgood22 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Tom Cooper gave an interview to CNN News 18. So, it will obviously only be reported by this news media not others. The interview is also real not a hoax. He is a renowned Austrian military historian. So, his analysis obviously should be re-added in analysis section. Snusho (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed in multiple threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Sir Austrian war historian Tom cooper is not from India. He is an independent analyst who wrote his own article and gave his own interview in news channels. Here some pakistani persons calling him not credible is not acceptable. According to them if someone says anything against pakistan the he is not credible. This should e put in analysys. The anaysys section looks like very much biased towards pakistani cliams. Tom cooper clerly says Indian atack on pakistani airbases were successful and the response were not. Satellite images also shown this. Sattelite images shows bigger destruction on pakistanbi side. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html The analyss section is filled with articles supporting pakistani claims. Analysys from John Spencer a reputed US militray man and another analysys by Michael Rubin all removed from here. Michale Rubin John Spencer and Tom cooper are not Indians. they are independent persons who themselves claimed this in media interviews. AT least one or two opinion should be added here. Otherwise its a clear biassed report in analysys section. Tom cooper is a reputable war historian, Michael rubin is a ex pentagon employee and John spence is a US military personal

https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/newshour/john-spencer-hails-indias-op-sindoor-as-massive-victory-says-mission-exceeded-all-objectives-video-151640898

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/operation-sindoor-exceeded-aims-india-achieved-a-massive-victory/articleshow/121153393.cms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXpH_GB7yo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5XQOgcephE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4smut7kGP8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmogfRZ44iQ Samsam111 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone is saying Cooper was removed just because he gave the interview in "godi media." I'm asking if he is EMPLOYED by godi media. If not, then how just giving an interview is a conflict of interest? If someone writes his opinion on X(twitter), then he becomes Republican as Elon Musk is republican? Nathularog (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Godi media is not a social media platform like X/Twitter, instead it is a pro-Modi government network of outlets. Orientls (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Tom Cooper has shared his view on X also, and also on his website

As per Wikipedia - Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages or columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals.

X/Twitter cannot be used as a source, same way Godi media also cannot be used as source for this information on this page. If Cooper published his analysis on an actual independent source then show it. Orientls (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

https://substack.com/@xxtomcooperxx/posts

Before you start yapping about substack

Here's the link to substack's wiki page Substack Rai achintya (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Substack is just yet another blog hosting service, thus it fails WP:RS. Orientls (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Only one failing here is your nation, I'll get the source one day or another 😂 and edit it myself Rai achintya (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Swatjester or User:Rosguill, might need an admin here as well. (Should I be reporting it in AE or somewhere else instead?) Soni (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Soni: Won't need. He is already reported on WP:ANI. Orientls (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this how we see conflict of interest? Does the expert's mind and opinion swings like a pendulum from day to day according to which platform he is using? Nathularog (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Publisher is important. Godi media does not question the sources that are in line with their pro-Modi government agenda. Orientls (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Gettign silly

Now 15 threads about one Austrian historian, do we really need to keep on having the same issues raised over and over again? This is a huge talk page and very difficult to find or follow threads.

All we need is one thread per topic, I therefore propose that from this point on, if a topic is being discussed, any subsequent threads on the same topic are closed and archived. Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you a 100% Iamgood22 (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven A lot of these threads are being created by newcomers who don't know how Wikipedia works and also do not know where to discuss. I have been merging a lot of these threads into single divisions (and archiving older ones), to reduce parallel discussions.

I also believe experienced editors should just close the excess threads and link to the right ones. That's how the rest of Wikipedia often handles things, just close duplicated discussions. Soni (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

PP would stop it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This thing has been removed again, details in Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#c-I just wikify-20250513134100-Prober90-20250513121200

Why is this possible? Is it not possible to lockdown the page or request approvals if we continue to see random edits like this without discussion. I just wikify (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Austrian expert and war historian Tom Coopers comments should be added.

I have seen here unnamed personals claims being added. then whats the problem adding a reputed world famous war historians comments.

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-expert-tom-cooper-on-indo-pak-conflict-says-islamabad-asked-for-ceasefire-2025-05-13-990090

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12

https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/no-surprise-pakistan-sounded-for-ceasefire-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-says-conflict-clear-cut-victory-for-india-article-13021560.html

https://neherald.com/national/clear-cut-victory-for-india-nuke-storage-targeting-tilted-outcome-says-combat-aviation-expert-tom-cooper

https://www.news18.com/india/austrian-analyst-india-pakistan-war-clear-cut-victory-bjp-reacts-operation-sindoor-updates-ws-l-9334070.html

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases/ar-AA1ECG6R

This should be added with reference. Clear cut victory for India says combat aviation expert Tom Cooper Samsam111 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYgZPITwfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrkCrRk5Xg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJK_r-1aXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2CoawU25CQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChaHj3iqAs

https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php

Videos are here. He said this thing in public news channels also. So why not add it. Here claims from unnamed persons are added then why not add this reputed person claims. This should be put in Analysis Samsam111 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

yes he gave an interview to cnn news 18. He was invited there to speak. It was live Iamgood22 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. It should be re-added in the 'Analysis' section. Snusho (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this wiki page has a lot of Pakistanis. Ansurrotho12 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting revert of Tom Cooper analysis removal

[1] removed the analysis by Austrian historian Tom Cooper. With more references provided under Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#c-Samsam111-20250514021400-Austrian_expert_and_war_historian_Tom_Coopers_comments_should_be_added. the analysis should be added back.

There has been a lot of discussion on this under Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Austrian_historian_(Tom_Cooper) and I believe that the result is for the analysis to be present.

−

+

Austrian military historian and combat aviation analyst Tom Cooper has termed India’s recent aerial offensive against Pakistan a “clear-cut victory,” stating that the lack of a Pakistani retaliatory capability and the targeting of strategic military sites—including nuclear weapons storage facilities—decisively tilted the outcome in India’s favour.

Text in diff as per

I just wikify

References

 Not done. I just wikify Please stop creating new sections for the same discussion. Also, this is being discussed in the above section. First gain consensus in that discussion, then ask for an edit request. Just making an edit request while the discussion is ongoing is going to cause lots of back-and-forth edits again. Soni (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Who all should I gain consensus from? I believe that many editors believe that this section should be added.

Mentioning @Prober90 @SlaterSteven @An Asphalt @Aviator Jr @Iamgood22 @RogerYg to help conclude on the edit, suggesting changes if any. I just wikify (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So the way WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia usually works is... You suggest a change. People discuss it, sometimes add Support or Oppose to their comments. Then an experienced editor (ideally not WP:INVOLVED) reads the discussion and comes to a conclusion. That is consensus. It is not the same as having a vote, or many editors agreeing with you, arguments favoured by WP:RS and Wikipedia policy are way more important than just editors who think something should be done.

So far I am not seeing very clear consensus in favour of the change. the discussion is so split and all over the place, and in part because it's not clear everyone agrees with exactly what should be re-added. So if I had to close all the threads above right now, it probably closes as "no consensus, come back in another few days".

I think you are better off with closing all the other subthreads and starting a clearer subsection to gain that consensus. Ideally with what should be re-added + cite relevant reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. But if another experienced editor is already seeing consensus here, I do not object. I just do not see it, therefore requesting no edit requests until y'all resolve this. Soni (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Revised wording with newer sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

He seems to be a well-established air warfare historian. I don't understand all this acrimony about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please consider including the original source [2] and [3] as well. Thanks! I just wikify (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi I just wikify, I agree that Tom Cooper analysis should be included, but had removed it several days back, because the references were very weak per WP:RS. Substack articles are not Reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also, News18 is a weak source. Sadly, top Indian sources like Indian Express and The Hindu are not reporting Tom Cooper, but we have some other good sources.

I agree with Kautilya3 to add Tom Cooper analysis with good sources. I think someone else has again removed it.

You may add it again with good sources as below:

• NDTV "No Surprise Islamabad Sounded For Ceasefire": Expert On India-Pak Truce

"After this series of blows, the writing was on the wall: pending the IAF exhausting its stocks of Brahmos and SCALP-EGs, Pakistan had nothing left to counter these," Tom Cooper wrote.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-tom-cooper-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-ceasefire-expert-on-india-pak-truce-8396353

• Economic Times 'Pakistan couldn't protect its own nuclear weapons': Top air warfare historian Tom Cooper calls India the clear winner

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-couldnt-protect-its-own-nuclear-weapons-top-air-warfare-historian-tom-cooper-calls-india-the-clear-winner/articleshow/121161557.cms

• Business Today Military historian Tom Cooper: 'Fighting ended after India hit entrance of suspected nuclear site'

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/military-historian-tom-cooper-fighting-ended-after-india-hit-entrance-of-suspected-nuclear-site-476471-2025-05-15

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hilarious claims by this Austrian "historian"

I just came across this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Tom_Cooper_is_not_a_reliable_source) and can't believe if this is satire. I will repeat the point which I couldn't help contain my laugh.

In his blogpost “Illusions and Reality” (https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross-b6c), he mentioned that India had captured two Pakistani pilots (Commander/Commodore "Chahat Fateh Ali Khan" and "Captain Syed Qaim Ali Shah"). This information is taken from a viral Pakistani meme that was making light of Indian claims. Chahat Fateh Ali Khan is a comedian/musician known for making satirical songs. Syed Qaim Ali Shah is a former Pakistani politician known for falling asleep. A "defence analyst" who cannot even bother to ascertain facts using OSINT or just a plain google search raises serious concerns about the reliability of their analysis.

If anyone is not familiar with this meme just search it up, but many Pakistani and even Indian editors most likely know it JayFT047 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Consider reading on WP:PARTISAN and WP:RSOPINION I just wikify (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is missing the diplomatic support given to Pakistan by Turkey and Azerbaijan. It added israeli statement but why not Turkey's and Azerbaijan's. 103.169.99.179 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Propaganda speaks :) neutrality is a myth :) I just wikify (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Personal Substack posts are not Reliable sources per WP:RS. Information & claims on personal Substack pages or personal social media posts should neither be used to add content on Wikipedia, nor for removing content from Wikipedia.

Many journalists from CNN and AlJazeera also have ridiculous claims on their personal social media, such as capturing of Indian pilots by Pakistan in recent conflict.

We should stop wasting editor's time on Wikipedia, in discussing personal substack or social media post claims.

If a Reliable WP:RS sources reports it, then it can be included on Wikipedia per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have really read WP:RS. Under WP:RSSELF it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" I just wikify (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

To best of my knowledge as Wiki editor, WP:RSSELF is rarely used becasue it will be very difficult to gain consensus on such self published content. My guess is 99% of such self-published sources will get rejected on Wikipedia RfC. It's best to go with WP:RS sources, in my humble view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This source should be removed from the "Analysis" section because the publisher is not independent from the Indian government. See Godi media. Orientls (talk)

Again, if a Reliable sources reports it, then it can be included on Wikipedia per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edit without discussion

We have seen more than two or three cases of this particular analysis being removed and added back again. There has been a full discussion but it feels like people want to ignore the discussion and just do whatever they want to do. Can this article somehow be restricted more than how it stands right now? Or should we start banning users or something?

I request for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&oldid=1290695924 to be reverted.

--I just wikify (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It cannot be restored in that form. See the discussion throughout this talk page. It tells why the articles from Indian media cannot be treated as third party sources. We will need independent sources if this "analysis" is really important enough for inclusion. Orientls (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I will just mention WP:RSSELF here, which should be self explanatory. I just wikify (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case we should have a consensus before deleting information. I just wikify (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At this point, given that this is a relatively new article that has never had a stable state since its creation, WP:ONUS is on editors wishing to include Tom Cooper's analysis to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of its inclusion. Reviewing the above sections, it is clear that such a consensus does not exist at this time and that further discussion is needed, possibly followed by an WP:RfC if this remains an impasse. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That entire section honestly needs the same nuke. Somehow the Tom Cooper lines are getting the most heat (probably because it was the only omission among the rest) but discussion on at least half of the other analyses have been similarly split in opinion (See archives)

In my opinion, we would be much better served by just drastically reducing the section and straight up removing all op-eds, unless the opinion is itself given weightage by other RS.

There's too much back and forth, and I'm not convinced the op eds have met the standards expected from RS. Soni (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There could be some legitimate concerns here. For example, Mr Brandon Weichert's article seems to be a bit too confident about the Pakistani claim that they shot down five Indian fighter jets, even though various other neutral sources have not concurred with this assertion. Withmoralcare (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

XC editors are welcome to remove contested content pending consensus for its inclusion. If the section does end up getting removed or drastically shortened, it will likely be prudent to start a new section for discussion, rather than having this squirreled away under several subsections of Tom Cooper. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Important to distinguish between an expert and a historian

I'd like to remind people that there's a distinction between an expert and a historian. Tom Cooper is a historian. Nobody seriously contests this. He has written a prolific number of books, some of which are published through reputable publishing houses, that document combat aviation throughout global history. Tom Cooper is *not* an expert on aerial warfare, on the other hand. He has no academic or experiential background with it whatsoever -- it's simply an area of interest that he started writing on. This is an important distinction to make, because in assessing Cooper's credibility (in order to assess his reliability), we need to distinguish between historical analysis, and present-day or future-looking expert analysis. And the problem is, insofar as WP:RS is concerned, Cooper is only really citable as an instance of the former -- he has no reputation with regard to the latter. This is an important distinction to make because per WP:RS, there are numerous places where being an *expert* matters. For instance, The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Experts may publish self-published-sources and we'll still consider them reliable: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. It looks like the above discussions have resolved with Rosguill's interpretation of WP:ONUS excluding the Cooper content; but it's still an important point to call out as we're clearly going to be addressing this with other "analysis" that's going to be disputed by both sides. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't contest the deletion of his content because he has only written blogs, nothing published, and he has been interviewed one-on-one on several Indian TV channels, including the Barkha Dutt's Youtube channel [4]. I have not seen him on multiple-participant discussions or panels. So I can't judge how his ideas would be received by other experts. The pubished newspaper write-ups are all based on the one-on-one interviews or his blog. So I would rather wait until some other experts validate his views.

I don't find the expert vs historian distinction particularly central to the debate. He is assessing the oeverall impact of the conflict, not the details of the combat or the strikes. The way he described it on the Barkha Dutt interview, if I am able to get your queen in 5 or 6 moves, it doesn't make much difference if I lost some pieces along the way. So he is much more focused on the strategic aspect rather than combat details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so by this logic, you should be able to delete or edit the fact that those “officials” that claim pakistans narrative are also unnamed and we do not know who they are or what their ranking is and the fact that their governments did not comment nor confirm pakistans claims? They aren’t any experts too. By the way, France has already called out Pakistans lies. Ansurrotho12 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that is not what Swatjester is saying.

It's a completely separate issue.

"By the way, France has already called out Pakistans lies."

Please source your claims before I continue this discussion. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Austrian war historian author Tom cooper claim should be added.

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/india-pakistan-tensions-austrian-military-historian-tom-cooper-says-its-clear-cut-victory-for-india-no-wonder-pakistan-asked-for-ceasefire-article-151632790

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-expert-tom-cooper-on-indo-pak-conflict-says-islamabad-asked-for-ceasefire-2025-05-13-990090

https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/clear-cut-indian-victory-iaf-hit-entrances-of-pak-n-weapons-site/articleshow/121147531.cms

https://www.cemaat.media/en/author/tom-cooper

Videos of he himself claiming that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXpH_GB7yo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5XQOgcephE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJK_r-1aXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2CoawU25CQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IppowYzk09M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYgZPITwfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9yyfPImPmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3ufuuGW_g

https://www.cemaat.media/en/author/tom-cooper

This should be added in Analysys section as many unnamed claims of unnamed personals are added here. This person is s reputable war historian from Austria. 157.51.212.29 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC about Austrian historian (Tom Cooper) being used as a credible source of information

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

---

Should Austrian historian (Tom Cooper) be considered a credible source of information to added in this article? Neera landoora (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes
• No

Bad RFC, its too broad a question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close this RfC. You will need a broader RfC outside this article for gaining consensus in favor of using Indian media sources for the conflicts where India is directly involved. Orientls (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes

he is a renowed war historian, he has written many books realted to wars in Iran, Libya, Ukrain, MIddle east etc

https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php

list of books Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat – 2003

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat – 2004

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat – 2004

African MiGs: MiGs and Sukhois in Service in Sub-Saharan Africa (Volume 1) – 2010

Wings Over Ogaden: The Ethiopian–Somali War, 1978–1979 – 2015

Libyan Air Wars Part 2: 1985–1986 – 2016

The Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980–1988 – 2002

Iraqi Fighters: 1953–2003 – Camouflage & Markings – 2008

Moscow's Game of Poker: Russian Military Intervention in Syria, 2015–2017 – 2018

War in Ukraine: Volume 6 – The Air War February–March 2022 – 2024

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.

Claimed destruction of PAF AWACS

During the Air Strikes by the Indian Air Force, some Indian sources ([5], [6]) claimed that one Saab 2000 Erieye AWACS aircraft of the Pakistani Air Force has been destroyed at the hangar of the Bholari airbase. The crew, as per the 2nd report, included the 5 airmen including Squadron Leader-ranked PAF officer Pakistan has informed to be killed. But these sources are not very reliable and I did not add this information as of then.

However, recently, a video has been circulating on twitter and facebook where a retired senior PAF officer Air Marshal Masood Akhtar confirms that "4 surface-to-surface or air-to-surface BrahMos missiles hit a hangar" and one of the AWACS in the hangar was lost. This video clip has been picked up by Indian media and can be easily used to reflect this in our article as these cite Pakistani sources. Sources: [7], [8], [9] and so on.

I am here to just gain consensus to add this loss in Indian claims in the infobox template as well as Air Strikes part since this is a significant loss. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I made the same proposal in "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2025 (4)" soome 13 hours ago. I am yet to receive a reply.

I made 2 requests there :

1. Losses of Pakistan in the 'Per Pakistan' section should now include '1 Damaged AEW&CS' as per the statement given by Pakistan Air Force's Ex-Air Marshal Masood Akhtar.

2. Losses of Pakistan in the 'Per India' section should now include 'Multiple MALE UAVs' and '1 AEW&CS'.

I also made a request for Quadcopters, YIHA and Commercial Drones to be added in the 'Per India' section of the Pakistani losses in "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2025 (5)". Yet again, no edits are being performed even after 24 hours of it being agreed upon.

I hope a consensus is reached, and edits performed this time. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

He did not say it was destroyed he said it was damaged. The same was already said by Pakistani authorities that one of their aircrafts got minor damage and will soon be able to fly again. Nothing new. MAJOR1980 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you give me the Pakistani sources? And then I am adding this information in the article. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it already is part of the article. "Pakistani military claimed one of its aircraft suffered minor damage in a confrontation with India" MAJOR1980 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That is entirely an Indian source and does not state anything like "will soon be able to fly again". Aviator Jr (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also that aircraft can be any type of aircraft in the PAF inventory, while we are talking specifically about an AEW&CS in the Bholari Airbase.

Since a very legitimate source inside Pakistan has claimed it to be damaged, it should be added as "1 SAAB-2000 AEW&CS Damaged" in the 'Per Pakistan' section of the Pakistani losses.

Whereas, "1 SAAB-2000 AEW&CS Destroyed" along with "Multiple MALE UAVs Destroyed" should be added in the 'Per India' section of the Pakistani losses. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I am a bit confused that whether AWACS part should be added in neutral sources since it is confirmed by both Indian and Pakistan... Aviator Jr (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If Pakistan's ex Air Marshal is confirming

it should be added 100% in neutral source

he's got no reason to have a India bias Rai achintya (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Any third party outlet published anything regarding this? Prober90 (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have not found any yet. But if a three-star PAF officer confirms it, I believe it should go to neutral claims. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Where is the confirmation? And no I don’t think so. Claims are only confirmed when a government official or the military claims something. An ex military personnel statement does hold weight, but there is no confirmation. All the citations I see are Indian, which don’t have the credibility to consider this as true. Prober90 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wdym by "where is the confirmation"? His (retired PAF officer's) words are very clear in the video. We can add it as a claim for now. Aviator Jr (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont know how you have concluded that according to him the aircraft was lost or destroyed. He clearly can be seen saying it was damaged which also corroborates with press briefing of one aircraft damaged. So Please first make this correction that the aircraft was not lost. second he is retired his words cannot be considered admission by Pakistan. Official statement as i remember was there was one aircraft damaged without details during press briefing MAJOR1980 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Conclusions are being drawn without proper information. Prober90 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If an ex second-highest ranking airforce official is claiming something, and 4 RS are reporting this claim, it definitely classifies as proper information.

We should wait for a neutral news outlet to varify the AEW&CS (Damaged/Destroyed) incident through their own sources, before deciding to add it to the '3rd party sources' section.

But in the meantime, the 'Per India' and 'Per Pakistan' section should definitely be updated as of now, the way I mentioned before. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Alirght. My fault. If done, I will add it as damaged, not destroyed. Is it okay then? Aviator Jr (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQvsb4ouuI0 1:02:18

I think there is no credible source that can confirm the type of aircraft damaged and in my opinion retired personnel dont equate officials. He can tomorrow claim PAF destroyed 100 Indian aircraft will this be taken as official stance ? MAJOR1980 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

A statement by a retired military officer whether from India or Pakistan is never an official (govt./military) stance. But I believe their statements of loss/damage especially for their own side is of much greater importance than any media reports, even more importance than those from third-party countries. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The retired Air Marshal stated to have sourced this information from the current serving members of the PAF, hence will be considered extremely high in the ladder of authenticity.

If the Indian side lets this big of a statement slide, then the comments of John Spensor and Tom Cooper should be reinstated in the analysis segment for the sake of neutrality.

Can we agree on this ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistani Airforce Air Marshal (Rtd) Masood Akhtar confirmed that one of Pakistan’s SAAB 2000 Erieye AEW&C aircraft was damaged when India launched a series of BrahMos cruise missiles against Bholari Airbase, located near the port city of Karachi, on the night of 9–10 May. Edit and and this in list of casualties on Pakistan per Pakistan. India Subcontinent (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Are the any RS sources that claim this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• The individual in question is non-notable and only Indian media (not independent) has covered it. We will need independent sources before including any of these claims. Orientls (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Are you Pro-Pak? You removed John Spensor, Tom Cooper who had independent view

  They even posted it on their personal X account and Cooper even posted it on his blog

  You removed it citing Indian Media bias? Rai achintya (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should wait for a neutral news outlet to varify the AEW&CS (Damaged/Destroyed) incident through their own sources, before deciding to add it to the '3rd party sources' section.

  Meanwhile, 4 RS claiming the same thing also has it's own weightage. So only the 'Per India' and 'Per Pakistan' section should be updated as of now, the way I mentioned before. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed either wait for official declaration or a neutral source which sooner or later will surface. MAJOR1980 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think now that the conflict has paused there will be hardly any neutral source confirmation. Let's forget official declaration from Pakistan. Can we not add this in Air Strikes as Indian media claims at least? Aviator Jr (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/on-camera-confession-pakistans-ex-air-marshal-admits-awacs-damaged-in-operation-sindoor/articleshow/121211842.cms

  https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJdei6nPQwS/ This is in pakistani media.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBYEbwyBlw

  Here is the video of pakistani air maeshal Masood Akthar in an interview with pakistanni Tv channel clearly saying that pakistan lost an Awcas aircraft

  https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ex-pakistani-air-marshal-masood-akhtar-admits-losing-awacs-aircraft-at-bholari-air-base-in-indias-operation-sindoor-8428696

  This is a named person and not a unnmaed person who made this claim and he is retired air marshal of pakistan air force.

  Here is the news https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/india-fired-brahmos-missile-on-pakistani-awacs-confirms-paf-retired-air-marshal/3846645/

  He himself confirmed this in TV interview in a news channel. 157.51.212.29 (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should add '1 AEW&CS and Multiple MALE UAVs Destroyed' in the Indian claims.

  Meanwhile '1 AEW&CS Damaged' can be added in the Pakistani claims with a citation 'Official Verification Pending'.

  This will be the most neutral approach. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Good God. I strongly suggest after observation of current Indian media reports that they should not be relied upon. This is becoming a joke now. The article headline in NDTV says lost and financial express says destruction while clearly he DID NOT say any of these words. Damage does not equal destroyed or lost. Neither is this a major admission. Damage to one aircraft has already been admitted by Pakistan and i think the retired air marshal is just explaining it how it happened. MAJOR1980 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  ANI claims a 'Destroyed' AEW&CS and multiple MALE UAVs in a seperate article which does not rely on the Rt Air Marshal's interview. Indian pov will be soured from this article.

  Whereas the 'Damaged' AEW&CS per Pakistan would be sourced from the interview, with a citation. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well then lets just add it in the article with "As reported by the Indian media" and that the articles have referred to this video. Nothing to be added in the infobox. It seems to be alright this way... Most importantly, the AWACS was damaged and not destroyed/lost. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is my final suggestion :

  Per India : "1 Destroyed AEW&CS, Multiple Destroyed MALE UAVs" [Citation : Official confirmation pending]

  Per Pakistan : "1 Damaged AEW&CS" [Citation : Official confirmation pending]

  3rd Party section should stay unchanged. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

All the three links I gave here are RS. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

24hrs have passed without any new suggestions. Have we reached a conclusion ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2025

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

---

1 Pakistani Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C destroyed should be added to 3rd party 98.47.60.170 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Not properly formatted, and this discussion is already in progress above on this page.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:41, 17 May 2025 (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.

Unverified source

in the Pakistani claimed losses there is an unverified source that states that a Pakistani AW&C has been shot down however this is unverified and neither India or Pakistan has claimed this loss and the source is of an unverified retired military personnel so we can't take it as the truth. 103.151.46.140 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There are barely any proper sources claiming this. Some Indian media published when the conflict was underway the article without any proofs or citing any official. Let's not add that. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2025 (4)

I have 2 edit requests :

1. Losses of Pakistan in the 'Per Pakistan' section should now include '1 Damaged AEW&CS' as per the statement given by Pakistan Air Force's Ex-Air Marshal Masood Akhtar.

2. Losses of Pakistan in the 'Per India' section should now include 'Multiple MALE UAVs' and '1 AEW&CS'.

Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that there has since been related discussion at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Claimed_destruction_of_PAF_AWACS _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: These sources are too weak for a contentious topic. We would need either an international source or a Pakistani source for corroboration. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

involvement of other countries

should we mention about the involvement of other countries like Turkey and China especially china

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-18/china-gave-pakistan-satellite-support-indian-defense-group-says DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement from the Indian Defense Ministry's group. The case for inclusion into the infobox is not strong enough yet. Orientls (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

no as they are not an active combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion of the source is based on a testimony from an Indian Defence Source.

Unless major news sites which state the same from an impartial and independent perspective, this source isn't enough to be added into the infobox. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand but any Indian & Pakistani official claims should be added to the article, obviously stating the source of those claims. I am not sure why major news sites need to cover everything for it to be added to the article. I just wikify (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Because 1 source isn't enough to stretch it out as an official claim.

Of course I agree with you that if the Indian Defense Ministry officially accuses China or Turkey with helping out Pakistan, then for sure the infobox should be updated in regards.

Provided that it is supplanted enough with high quality reliable sources. Regardless the reason why this article tends to use major news sites as sources, is because in Wikipedia, Indian and Pakistan media are classed as generally unreliable.So there needs to be a collation of various news sources in order to back up that singular point. I.e if you check the infobox, you will see how many citations there are for each loss.DarkPhantom23 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So I checked, almost 25% sources(might have changed) of this article come from Indian media I also oppose any effort to block and any active efforts to not use any Indian sources provided the source is in WP:RSP. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:RSP does not contain most sources, for example, The National Interest and others. Not highly surprised that 25% of the sources are from Indian media, after all, this conflict is about India-Pakistan. I just wikify (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources that go into the WP:RSP are the sources that are contested so if there are Indian sources that are contested then let's hash it out over at the WP:RSP noticeboard. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Two Turkish civilian contractors were KIA in an Indian air strike targetting terror launchpads and airbases in Pakistan as per Greek City Times article Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also what was Turkey Navy warship TGC Buyukada doing in Karachi, where it was welcomed by Pak Navy. Turkish govt. rejected the claims of sending arms and amo via the flights in Karachi, but they never said anything about it Naval war ship presence in Karachi, days before India striked the 9 terror camps in Pakistan. Also there is a photo of a Pak Navy personnal holding Pak and Turkish flag in background of the turkey naval ship Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC

I think this RfC is pretty much needed to decide the design of infobox. Looking at the above discussion, I have encountered reluctant opinions to go with my proposal, but if not trivially then it could be done with general consensus here. The Independent sources hold indefinite and varying values of the Indian casualties:

• France 24 (Debunking other losses but consonant with one Rafale loss): Only one French aircraft may have been shot down.
• Reuters(Based on unknown US officials and written in jargon tone): A top Chinese-made Pakistani fighter plane shot down at least two Indian military aircraft on Wednesday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, marking a major milestone for Beijing's advanced fighter jet...Another official said at least one Indian jet that was shot down was a French-made Rafale fighter aircraft.
• Al Jazeera: Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.
• AFP (Another unknown source with no hard evidence): Three Indian fighter jets crashed on Wednesday on home territory, a senior Indian security source said, without giving the cause.
• The Washington Post (Evidence based report): India’s air force appears to have lost at least two fighter jets, including one of its most advanced models, during attacks Wednesday morning on sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, according to a review of visual evidence by The Washington Post.

Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?

1. Option 1: 1—3 aircraft shot down or lost.
2. Option 2: Omit from infobox.
3. Option 3: 3 aircraft shot down or lost. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Xavier Tytleman rebukes the claims of Rafale downs. If that's the case, then I'll have to go with Option 2 and omit the dubious casualties, having no hard evidence presented as such. We can add these differing analysis to article body. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Instead of citing the actual source of the information, which is an Indian pro-Hindutva fake news source [10] you are citing some translated article on "directus.gr" in order to evade the concerns about horrible reputation of Indian media. Be careful and stop finding ways to deceive editors with this waste of time RfC. Wareon (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Kindly do not bother yourself if it is a waste of time to YOU Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If you read the source you cited, it does not contradict claims from The Washingtonpost. They focus on two completely separate pieces of evidence. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close - The RfC is not formatted properly and provides options without any basis. If you don't have any independent sources that reject any losses of the airforce, then you shouldn't provide any option like "Option 2: Omit from infobox". Orientls (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is actually well formatted if you have a close look at it. I'm basing the option 2 because sources currently fluctuate the casualties and before inserting anything, we need to discuss the losses. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close - No basis to have Option 2, you should explain why each option exists, corroborating them with neutral, known and reliable sources. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I will note "at least two" does not exclude three, Nor does "at least 2". Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close - This is yet another attempt to hide Indian aircraft losses. Ecrusized (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Option 2: Omit from infobox. Could not be counted in Pakistan claim , their def minister say they source their claim from sm posts152.56.16.155 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not notice this before, but adding my rationale here.

There are varying reports discussing losses. Some say one, some two, some three. Some attribute to anonymous sources, while others cite "high likelyhood". To interpret this as "3 lost or downed" is a complete misrepresentation. Option 1 is the closest to a summary of RS.

A reminder for all editors, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH are important policies. Our aim is not to analyse the information in sources and them make conjectures based on them - We are supposed to simply summarise RS. Only Option 1 does that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 seems reasonable. I can see sources that have different understanding of the losses. To make it vanish from the infobox, a sufficient amount of sources must be presented in order to evaluate the infobox presentation. SolarSyntax (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Option 2 seems valid, unless there is a neutral report out with legitimate proofs instead of citing classified sources without proof and facts (which is currently been done by this outlets), it should be removed. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

India used dummy aircraft to fool PAF

Indian forces used "dummy pilotless aircraft" that were camouflaged to appear as IAF jets on enemy radars, fooling Pakistan into thinking they were Indian aircraft like the Rafale and Su-30MKI. The name of the drones are 'lakshya' and 'Banshee,'. Please add this important information in this article. Source-

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-india-used-dummy-pilotless-aircraft-during-counter-strikes-on-pakistani-airbases/articleshow/121236743.cms

CBum 6 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Are we serious rn? I have no words also that source won't be added. Prober90 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The usage of Unmanned Target Aircrafts as baits is a very well known tactic of military deception.

Luneburg Lenses are mounted on the target aircrafts to mimic the RCS of real fighter aircrafts, so that the enemy radar sites active to intercept them, revealing their position in the process.

They are then targetted with Anti-Radiation Missiles/Loitering Munitions.

Here's an RS for the reference. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

You are citing Hindustan Times. It is almost as credible as Times of India. Orientls (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that someone sent me list of RS where Hindustan Times was on the same level of The Hindu and The Indian Express.

It was on the discussion of '600+ Drones Intercepted' where we were talking on the reliability of The New Indian Express.

However for some reason I can't seem to find the link anymore, even my History isn't leading me to the same page. Maybe it has something to do with the discussion being closed and removed. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually question if that is a tactic or not, but in this case it seems like a fabricated story. Prober90 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should question the reliability of a reliable source. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually in this case we can as "Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. ". Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was using Hindustan Times as a source. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not what you linked to here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't start the thread.

My link is a bit further down. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

My mistAKE. However the issue of paid content and unreliability applies to them as well, read wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a wikipage containing reliable sources per country ?

I am pretty sure that someone sent me list of RS where Hindustan Times was on the same level of The Hindu and The Indian Express. But I can't seem to find the link anymore. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

You can find them at WP:RSP. As of now; The Hindu, Indian Express and The Wire are considered reliable on Wikipedia. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It ain't this link, but ah well !

I guess this shouldn't be added as of now. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It should be added, because they qualify for WP:RSP and so there is no reason to ignore them Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Hindu & The Wire was caught spreading fake news, this kind of unreliable sources should not be trusted at all, the hindu and the wire both have apologies for spreading fake news.

I can give you ton of sources

https://arisebharat.com/2025/05/08/operation-sindoor-how-the-hindu-feeds-enemy-propaganda-with-fake-reports/

https://thecommunemag.com/the-hindu-publishes-half-hearted-apology-disables-comments-for-netizens/

https://www.exchange4media.com/digital-news/the-hindu-removes-report-on-alleged-fighter-jet-crash-in-kashmir-143236.html

https://www.daily-sun.com/post/803913

https://www.adgully.com/post/1479/the-hindu-retracts-report-on-alleged-fighter-jet-crash-in-kashmir

First you should understand which media are reliable or not then try to decide which qualifies for WP:RSP 2406:7400:51:CF62:11F7:9AAF:5B0C:4D7E (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Kind of obvious anyways Prober90 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos

"Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos" (Bunyan Marsoos) should be removed from the lead as it was an insignificant part of the conflict. It was just the Islamabad reporter of Al Jazeera (Qatar state media), who hyped it. Nobody else paid any attention it. For example, The Guardian just mentioned it in the passing, attributed to Pakistan. Whether it was real or not, it was a complete failure. The missiles either missed their targets or got neutralised in the air. Both New York Times and The Washington Post have examined the satellite imagery and reported no damage.

The real sequence of events on 10 May begins with a long-range ballistic missile attack either on Hirsa Air Force station or on Delhi. It was intercepted over Sirsa at 12:15 am. That was still 11:45 pm on 9 May in Pakistan, and the missile would have been launched 15-30 minutes earlier. So Pakistan was trying to escalate the conflict on the night of 9 May. Whether it was Sirsa or Delhi, both were high-value targets. The Chinese media was still crowing about it 4 days later as "breakthrough hypersonic missile" attack.

If such a fancy missile got neutralised, the Pakistan military would have fully expected that the Bunyan Marsoos missiles would also face the same fate. This Quranic-sounding propagandistic term was coined for either domestic consumption or to drum up support from the Muslim world. Immediately afterwards, Pakistan started talking about "de-escalation".

[Khawaja Asif] added: “We can’t trust the Indians for talks and de-escalation. If interlocutors and our common friends and credible countries such as Saudi Arabia and the US step in and play a crucial role, we have no issue to de-escalate. We did not start it. We just responded to the Indian military aggression.”

The Pakistani PM confirmed that he authorised ceasefire well before sunrise. If the Pakistani military expected the "Operation" to succeed, there is no way they could be talking about ceasefire. Rather, they should be getting ready for defending against a retaliation. This was just a last hurrah before turning off the lights.

In any case, it is entirely clear that this was just hype. It has no place in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to base your analysis on Godi media sources such HT and LiveMint then your argument carries no weight. You have cited SCMP, but it tells how Chinese media described that "Chinese missiles were used by Pakistan to destroy an Indian air defence system last week in what is believed to be their first combat use". Wareon (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If you don't like HT and Mint, take it to WP:RSN. I have seen videos of Pakistani PM's speech and there is nothing inaccurate in Mint's report. If you are serious about contesting it, I can dig up the video.

I understand that SCMP had serious difficulty with word jugglery to attribute statements to fake news sites, but the fragment you mention seems to have been attributed to "China Space News report", whatever that may be.

Meanwhile, your job is to provide evidence of WP:SIGCOV for "Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos". Good luck finding it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Why should I bother at WP:RSN to discuss the well known poor credibility of those Godi media sources? Your own WP:OR is not relevant. Mentioning the name of a retaliatory counter operation that was part of the broader conflict requires no WP:SIGCOV unless someone is creating an article about it. Nobody is doing so right now. Wareon (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you indeed have to bother yourself by proving that HT, Mint and other reliable english print news orgs fall within Godi media. The lead does not need a term which receives scanty coverage. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

HT media owns both Hindustan Times and LiveMint and is known for colluding with Modi government.[11] They fall under Godi media. Next time, read the history of the outlets before commenting on them. Orientls (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary agitation. Feel free to take your dossier to RSN. It's not the place for Fox news vs. CNN news type debate. Sources can be partisan towards a particular ideology. What really matters is to prove that HT and Mint have been found in publishing fake and unverified news. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Onus is on you to prove the reliability of these Godi media sources if you really want to use them. How does your argument contradicts the fact that they are not Godi media? You are still wrong because both HT and LiveMint have published fake news and false claims.[12][13][14][15] Wareon (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

you will even declare satelite images as godi media 2409:40C1:2115:237F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine. The Indian Express has said “the explosion was heard in two villages post midnight”. That doesn't give a precise time, but it corroborates the rough time frame.

And clips of PM's speech are available aplenty on twitter 1:15 min, 3:31 min, with English subtitles. All of them corroborate what Mint reported.

And we also know that US Secretary of State called General Munir at 4 am local time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Wareon's revert

When I checked the page this morning, I noticed the lead has been expanded and split into paragraphs. After checking the details, I found most of the restructuring was incorrect and fixed it. I was surprised to see that User:Wareon had reverted all the changes with a cryptic "no improvement". I don't know who did the original edits, but since Wareon has now reinstated it, it now becomes their responsibility. Let us look at the third paragraph, which is tom-tomming the "Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos".

On 10 May, Pakistan launched a retaliatory operation codenamed Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, which they stated targeted several Indian military bases. India's military said that Pakistan's retaliatory strikes targeted civilian areas, including Hindu and Sikh religious sites. Pakistan's long-range missile was intercepted near the Indian air base of Sirsa, Haryana. In retaliation, India expanded the scope of Operation Sindoor to attack Pakistani military installations. India attacked several Pakistan air bases , including Nur Khan, Rafiqi, and Murid.

References

The first sentence is sourced to Al Jazeera [2], an article written by its "Islamabad correspondent". It has no information about what happened in India prior to this "Operation". There is no mention of long-range ballistic missle intercepted at Sirsa around midnight. Worse, no words like "retaliation" or "rataliotory" appear in the source. But it is the big deal of this sentence! Retaliation to what?

The next sentence says India said, the missiles hit civilian areas. Really? That source [3] predates the so-called Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos! The third sentence talks about Sirsa. But that happened earlier in the night, as mentioned several times in this section already. The last sentence talks about India hitting several airbases. But that happened earlier too. Pakistani PM tells us that he got a call at 2:30 am from the General, telling him about it and asking permission for a retaliatory strike. So the whole sequence is backwards!

Wareon, I am expecting either a self-revert or a thorough explanation. You have 24 hours. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I am sure that the ordering needs improvement, however, your edit was not an improvement since it said that Pakistan "Pakistan claimed to have launched a retaliatory operation", when there is no doubt that they did launch it. See another source that says "Earlier on Saturday, the two neighbours targeted each other’s military sites as Pakistan launched “Operation Bunyan Marsoos” after three of its own airbases were hit by India’s air-to-surface missiles. Both sides claimed to have intercepted most projectiles, but also admitted that some strikes caused damage." Also, why did you tag the source? If you are seriously questioning the reliability of Al-Jazeera then you should read WP:ALJAZEERA.

If we were to make improvements to the existing version, then we will have to first remove "Pakistan's long-range missile was intercepted near the Indian air base of Sirsa, Haryana. In retaliation, India expanded the scope of Operation Sindoor to attack Pakistani military installations." This sentence is sourced to a primary source and the claims are being stated as facts. Wareon (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Made the edits I proposed above. Wareon (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

To the extent any newsmedia source is reliable Al Jazeera is. Now, mind, if I had my way I'd delete every newspaper article from this topic and leave it a stub until some proper academic sources come out as Wikipedia is not intended to be a breaking news platform. But, as that is a non-starter, it seems almost perverse to exclude one of the most reliable newsmedia sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No source is sacrosanct. We follow WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean rejection of reliable sources while sticking to partisan sources. Azuredivay (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No justification has been provided why it would violate our neutrality pillar to include Al Jazeera. Please remember that while articles should be neutral there is absolutely no requirement for a source to be neutral Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Using one POV source with limited information and knowledge, and possible bias, is certainly not NPOV. This is the only source that gives WP:SIGCOV to Operation Bunyan Marsoos. All others mention it in passing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the source claim limited knowledge or are you assuming it has limited knowledge. The complaint of bias is pointless to respond to. It's policy compliant to use a biased reliable source. As for the sigcov argument that is something I would have to assess further - it is likely the strongest argument you have made. But even so I think that is somewhat dependent on treating this operation as a distinct event from the overall event described by this page to be at all relevant. That is dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In order to make any useful contribution to this discussion, you should at least read the article, even the discussion of 10 May, and understand how the lead misrepresented it. Then you can come back and propose solutions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok so you do not have any grounds to exclude Al Jazeera, gotcha. Simonm223 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I give it low WP:WEIGHT. Your whole slant shows a complete lack of understanding of one of the "fundamental pillars" of Wikipeida (NPOV). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:FOC and answer why do you think Al-Jazeera should be excluded. Wareon (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Reply to Wareon: If both sides targeted each other's military sites, where is the need to give a name to one of them? Why did somebody put up a paragraph in the lead as if it was a description of that name, and why did you reinstate it? I am not happy with saying that Bunyan Marsoos was in response to Indian strikes, because the Indian strikes themselves were in response to strikes on Sirsa and other places. (There are rumours that the Sirsa intercepted missile was actually headed to Delhi.) The source is not an issue. Better sources can be found in the body. MOS:LEAD has to be first an accurate summary of the body. Sources are secondary. They are not even needed most of the time.

I did not tag the "source". I tagged the statement. pov-inline or pov statement tags the statement.

I was not making "improvements" to the existing version. I just corrected the chronology, which was stated in my edit summary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The right thing for you to do is to reinstate my version. Then we can proceed with whatever other issues you might have. I can't debate a moving target. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the issues I highlighted with your version and also corrected the issues with the earlier version with this edit, I believe it is now time to move on and discuss the present version if necessary. Wareon (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the debate really can we or can we not give Pakistan's name for its operation or is there some other dispute? Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think certain parties want to occlude any actions taken by Pakistan. For the life of me I don't know why. They're an experienced enough editor that their misinterpretation of WP:NPOV seems somewhat alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If (IF) that is the case, nay nay and thirce nay. The idea that Pakistan's response is undue, in a conflict they are party to, is....beyond words. Their response has been widely cited by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes the removal of Pakistani operation would be totally unwarranted. Wareon (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

An operation that lasted not more than a few hours, having no impact on the other side and to top it all; receives no coverage from any other independent media pieces, warrants inclusion in the lead ? I do not think so. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a misrepresentation of the concerns (which are perfectly valid) and would suggest a quick brush up on both WP:NPOV (especially the portion on false equivalence) and WP:FOC. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I also would like to point out to both @Wareon and @Orientls that our bar for reliable sources is listed at WP:RS, which I encourage them to go through. Simply labelling any media you don't agree with as "Godi Media", a heavily politically charged label, does not suddenly make that source less credible - it only erodes your standing as an editor. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The very first edit by Azurdivay & Orientls on this page was over this Godi Media contention. Heraklios 20:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

General discussion on sources

Al Jazeera is an RS, as is [[16]], [[17]]. This may not be as it is only India's claim [[18]]. However, it is clear RS are talking about Pakistan's strikes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The dispute was about undue weight to the Pakistani strikes, and the creation of a false equivalence with the Indian strikes. Pasting links doesnt solve that, especially when one of the links gives no importance to the name of the operation, in line with what was discussed above.
I dont have a draft of the lead rn, so I'm not introducing any proposals. I'm just pointing out the issues with the arguments raised above, lest someone try and stonewall a later proposal with "discussed earlier". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If you know any better term than "Godi media" for describing the heavily noted degradation of Indian mainstream media, then let others know. Until then, you should not make these invalid objections. Orientls (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are not serious, because if you truly believe you can reject sources based on a personal opinion about their political motives, we have a far more serious WP:CIR issue here. "Invalid objections", really? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

So regardless of the term what we can say for certainty that there are wide-spread reliability problems within the Indian press. While many of these are surrounding the widespread use of undisclosed paid advertising, the other key issue has been the close political alignment of the Indian press with the Modi regime. Considering that some people have suggested that an outlet from Qatar may have bias concerns (my only guess being because Qatar has closer political ties to Pakistan than to India as the other possibility goes into some areas I'd prefer to avoid per WP:AGF) it seems somewhat bizarre that these widespread problems with Indian publications are being disregarded. Again, I'm not a fan of over-reliance on journalistic sources of any type. But the Financial Times, for example, has a far spottier reliability record, on Asian conflict, than Al Jazeera. I'm honestly quite tempted to bring up the objection raised by Kautilya3 at WP:RS/N. The main reason I have not is because I don't like wasting noticeboard time and their objections to the use of Al Jazeera as a source are so divergent from Wikipedia policy that it seems doing so would, in fact, be a waste. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you skipped over my comment above, the key words being false equivalence, which falls under WP:NPOV. The fact that it was sourced to a Pakistani correspondent was a secondary matter, as far as I understand. If you wish to take this up further, IG the right venue to sort out misunderstandings would be either of you two's talk page.

Adding, regarding Indian media - I think I could quote you above

The complaint of bias is pointless to respond to. It's policy compliant to use a biased reliable source.

Most of the sources editors callously label as "Godi Media" are perfectly reliable sources, or as reliable as most news sources get. Them being sympathetic to the government for monetary or ideological reasons does not change that. If that was the case, we would have to wipe out most of the news media from WP:RS, since they tend to have an ideological tilt one way or another. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid writing by newsmedia is a major reliability issue. WP:NEWSORGINDIA indicates this very clearly. It is, in fact, very abnormal journalistic practice throughout the rest of the world. Bias in favour of the Modi regime is WP:NPOV compliant. However a history of factually incorrect statements that serve a specific political purpose (such as I alluded to in reference to the Financial Times) is not WP:RS compliant regardless of the interpretation of neutrality. I hope this clarifies the relevant policies.

Finally it is not a false equivalency to say "India did X and Pakistan responded by doing Y" in the lede. Again these arguments against inclusion of the Al Jazeera source seem very much like post-hoc rationalizations for excluding a source you don't happen to like. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Paid editing in NEWSORGINDIA is completely irrelevant in this context. Are you trying to imply that WP:NEWSORGINDIA refers to the Indian Government paying newspapers to push its views? I think its quite disingenuous to try and discredit legitimate, valid reports by Indian media as a whole in your message, while simultaneously accusing me of "post-hoc rationalizations for excluding a source you don't happen to like."

And it is, indeed, a case of false equivalence - the lead was attempting a false equivalence by providing equal weight to the strikes done by both sides, when third party reports very clearly state that one side inflicted significant damage on infrastructure and the other side little to no identifiable damage. In such a case, the idea that we should be reporting both as "equivalent" is completely in violation of WP:NPOV. I again, urge you to go through my messages in the thread in order, and I think you would be able to understand my point. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop making these snide personal remarks. WP:NEWSORGINDIA and Godi media have mostly the same suspects. It is not misleading to cite either in this discussion. It has been shown that multiple reliable sources have given weight to both operations, including the one launched by Pakistan on 10 May. According to whom exactly "the other side little to no identifiable damage"? Orientls (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I should note that I don't have a personal stake in this. However this page has hit a lot of my normal haunts as a page with a lot of problems and I think some neutral editors participating would be a good thing. As a neutral editor I am concerned that the reliability of questionable news outlets is being over-stated. While some reliable outlets such as Al Jazeera are being maligned in manners that are not compatible with Wikipedia policy. I've raised that HT has serious reliability issues. As for whether they do paid reporting for the Indian government, that's the problem with undisclosed paid reporting, we don't know.

I've also said that, barring a clear consensus emerging on this issue at RS/N MintNews should probably be treated as reliable. I've made the location of the RS/N thread I started to clarify that clear and I endeavored to make my statement there neutral. Anyone is, of course, welcome to participate in that discussion.

I would also encourage everyone to focus less on contentious labels such as "Godi media" or on the personal comportment of other editors and to, instead, focus on the sources and their relationship to Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt implying in any way that you were an unethically motivated editor. I was simply pointing out that I was quite annoyed by your statement about me using flimsy arguments to get Al Jazeera removed because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues.

As for the "paid reporting" stuff, it deals with brands and organisations paying media to cover their events/acheivements/accolades/products. I think WP:NEWSORGINDIA makes that clear, and in addition, most of the media houses listed there do so in a separate section/label than their regular reporting.

This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline notability.....Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability.
Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I will not respond to the "Godi Media" argument - Please read our policies on WP:RS. I have clarified it enough, the argument has absolutely no basis in policy.

As for sources regarding damage assessment, please see the reports from NYT.

Where India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan’s military facilities and airfields, as the latter stretch of fighting shifted from symbolic strikes and shows of force to attacks on each other’s defense capabilities.

High-resolution satellite imagery, from before and after the strikes, shows clear damage to Pakistan’s facilities by Indian attacks, if limited and precise in nature.
.
.
Satellite images of the sites Pakistan claimed to have hit are limited, and so far do not clearly show damage caused by Pakistani strikes even at bases where there was corroborating evidence of some military action.

Pakistani officials, according to state media, said their forces had “destroyed” India’s Udhampur air base. The family of one Indian soldier has confirmed his death on the base. But an image from May 12 does not appear to show damage.

As an unserious point, I hope that NYT wont qualify as a Godi Media source :) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the Al Jazeera profile page of Anmol Saxena, supposed to be its bureau chief in India. There is nothing from him throughout 2025. In contrast, The Guardian's Delhi and Islamabad reporters were jointly filing several reports everyday during the conflict. If you think the quality of information from Al Jazeera and The Guardian would be the same, you would be out of your mind. RS vs non-RS distinctions are for beginners. There are nowhere enough to cover complicated conflict topics like this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please mind your WP:CIV here. I am not out of my mind. I am asking you to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It has already been proven above how HT and LiveMint are Godi media. Why don't you provide a valid reason for rejecting the established fact about Godi media instead of assuming bad faith? You are supposed to reject Godi media outlets entirely whenever you have to state a fact that requires an actual independent source. Orientls (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's avoid labels for now. It's sufficient to say that HT is specifically called out n WP:NEWSORGINDIA as a platform that has undisclosed paid reporting. LiveMint is an HT product which provides some concern about that although the last time it was brought up at WP:RS/N (five years ago) the consensus was that it was generally reliable, with the caveat that some editors found it Questionable for international reporting, which is important context for this article. I would suggest that HT is not reliable in this context. As for LiveMint I'd say that, barring another trip to RS/N, we should probably treat it as reliable. However a trip to RS/N would be appropriate and I will probably start a thread on it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint_for_the_2025_India-Pakistan_conflict for the thread. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Bunyan-*um* Marsoos, not *un* or *al*

Correct the spellings, it's Bunyan-um Marsoos. Not Bunyan-am, um or al. Bunyan-um Marsoos. Aysg6wgwv (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I should agree agree with this. As per "Nunation -un" on last letter of first word but combination with first letter of second word "Arabic alphabet m" makes its pronounciation "-um". Anyone expert in phoenetics may introduce correct symbols for better. Thanks! M. Billoo 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2025

Pakistani aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor, based on multiple credible sources reporting losses including fighter jets and AWACS.

During Operation Sindoor, Pakistan reportedly lost several aircraft, including Mirage-5, JF-17 Thunder, F-16 fighter jets, and a Saab 2000 Erieye AWACS aircraft. While Pakistan has not officially confirmed the fighter jet losses, the destruction of the AWACS aircraft was indirectly admitted by retired Pakistani Air Marshal Masood Akhtar. Indian defense sources and third-party analysts have provided radar and visual evidence supporting these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshitvarmasagi721 (talk • contribs)

• Already discussed many times, including above at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan_conflict#Claimed_destruction of PAF AWACS. This cannot be included. Orientls (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Inclusion of Pakistani Jet Losses

Recent reports from multiple credible sources, including Indian defense officials and statements by retired Pakistani Air Marshal Masood Akhtar, suggest Pakistan lost several aircraft during Operation Sindoor. Specifically:

- Mirage-5, JF-17, F-16 jets (claimed by India) - Saab 2000 AWACS (indirectly admitted by Pakistani official)

Sources: [ ]

Could this information be reviewed for inclusion in the article, with proper citations? Thanks! Harshitvarmasagi721 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty weak sourcing for such a claim since The Economic Times has a past history of inaccurate reporting regarding regional conflicts involving India. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news blotter and best practice isn't to fill it with breaking news. We can wait until information is verified by multiple (or at least better) sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Harshitvarmasagi721 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Per @Simonm223's reply, consider looking for another source. If there is a reliable source that cites a high official and currently in office claiming that, it is considerably notable to be added.

@Harshitvarmasagi721 Can you look for any such mentions and send it here? It is not officially claimed by either side right? Can you also send links for Indian officials claiming that? It can be added if it hasn't been added already. Try for official sources. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@HilssaMansen19@sim

Thanks for the input. I have added claims from Indian officials and retired Pakistani officers acknowledging losses, including specific references to F-16s,JF-17, Mirage and AWACS. These are from credible sources and official statements where available. If you have other sources or updates, please share.

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/pakistans-awacs-aircraft-lost-in-brahmos-strikes-at-bholari-air-base-pak-air-marshal-says-in-interview/?utm_source=chatgpt.com&amp

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-wreckage-pakistani-mirage-jet-operation-sindoor-army-ceasefire-conflict-pahalgam-attack-2723585-2025-05-12?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-admits-paf-air-force-officials-killed-india-strikes-operation-sindoor-2723994-2025-05-13 Harshitvarmasagi721 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Already discussed many times, including above at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan_conflict#Claimed_destruction of PAF AWACS. Orientls (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Trimmed URLs "dead"?

Hi Achmad Rachmani, hope you are doing well. Just to be sure, please specify which URL you think is dead, instead of completely reverting? Pakistani newspapers, like Dawn, Express Tribune, The News, etc., factually have the link number and then they repeat the title words in their url, which can be trimmed as well.

FYI earlier, you renamed a "ref name" after I ran reFill, which I corrected afterwards as well.

Mistakes happen, we all are learning. Awaiting your response on undoing my edit, thank you! M. Billoo 00:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani: Thank you for your response. All Pakistani links are live in Pakistan, so I don't see any link dead. I can't say if they are blocked elsewhere, but what my point was, adding title words in url stays dummy.

• [32], [33], [34], generate same response
• [35], [36], [37] generate same response

M. Billoo 00:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

India has banned access to Pakistan-based channels and news sites, so users in India can't view them directly. However, they may still be accessible via the Internet Archive, if archived copies exist and are linked here. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truth Layer 123: Thank you. I know and you are right (please also see this). But my point here isn't justified yet, the user undoing my edit stating them dead. M. Billoo 13:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think, all those links might have been archived on [https://archive.org/ Internet Archive], the best practice is to using the archived links directly to furnish the citation, so that Indians can also access them. And please report that user on ANI, if he repeated it more than 3 times, without engaging in any formal discussion here. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Consider including the information as per Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_6#Trump's_new_statements & https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-qatar-trump-once-again-claims-he-helped-settle-tensions-between-india-and-pakistan/article69579926.ece

I just wikify (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing to change per that discussion. Orientls (talk)

I would like for the wordings `"…And by the way, I don't want to say I did, but I sure as hell helped settle the problem between Pakistan and India last week, which was getting more and more hostile,” he said while addressing U.S. military personnel at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.` to be added as per https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-qatar-trump-once-again-claims-he-helped-settle-tensions-between-india-and-pakistan/article69579926.ece I just wikify (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what he claims? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#International section mentions the below -

United States: President Donald Trump remarked that "It's a shame" and said "I just hope it ends very quickly." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to the national security advisers from India and Pakistan and urged both to keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation. Vice President JD Vance said that, a potential war between India and Pakistan is "none of our business." Furthermore, he said that, "We want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible.

This is one more thing he has said and should therefore be added in the same section. And in other places where Trump's statements have been mentioned. Essentially he has watered down his own contribution into the ceasefire. I just wikify (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Today, TOI reported "US President Donald Trump has again said that he played a role in helping India and Pakistan stop hostilities, claiming the understanding came through trade talks that helped ease tensions between the two countries."[38] Your concern that he has watered down his statement (according to TOI) is no longer valid. Orientls (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't TOI Godi media? I am not sure why it is being quoted since we have discussed avoiding Godi media if better sources are available. I just wikify (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You cited TOI in the last discussion.[39] Here you cited The Hindu above and it has also reported hours ago that Trump has once again claimed the credit.[40] It has superseded the 6 days old report you are using. Orientls (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Improve Impact section

The impact section should include more information as per [[41]]

Currently, it does not appear to be WP:NPOV, and lot of information including about indian spies or diplomatic personnel being removed from position or Turkey boycott etc is not included.

If not possible/feasible, atleast consider adding an "improvement needed" block to the section. I just wikify (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you really want to repeat the same discussion then you should say something new. I would recommend you to post your preferred wording with regards to your proposal. Orientls (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Merging 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement

The article 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement was recently sent to AFD and closed with consensus to merge. We should evaluate how much/what of that article is salvageable and should be merged.

Some of the reactions could be now merged into 2025 India–Pakistan crisis instead, but I suspect most of this will need to be just removed altogether. Soni (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, so does anyone have something they think needs adding here? Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I nominated that article for deletion as I believed the ceasefire is already substantially covered within this article, and the boilerplate quotefarm reactions section doesn't seem worthy of including. I uphold my original position that there's nothing to merge, and it should simply be redirected. 9ninety (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, nothing to merge, we can simply delete it/redirect it here. But information given by India Foreign Secretary on his press brief that Pakistan DGMO dialled his counterpart, Indian DGMO at 3.30 pm IST to should be added to the Ceasefire section in the main page here. Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39489/Statement_by_Foreign_Secretary_May_10_2025 (source of what I said above) Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of decoys/dummy aircrafts or drones which mimicked RCS of Rafael, Su-30MKI and MiG-29 used to locate HQ-9

sources:- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-india-used-dummy-pilotless-aircraft-during-counter-strikes-on-pakistani-airbases/articleshow/121236743.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-india-used-unmanned-dummy-aircrafts-to-fool-pakistan-during-operation-sindoor-101747463017133.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/india-tactical-moves-operation-sindoor-pakistan-air-defence-brahmos-ws-b-13889238.html 2406:7400:51:E606:8986:1219:7556:E355 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Being discusses here [[42]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The New Washington Post?

The 'Analysis' section says this:

"On the other hand, The New Washington Post reported the alleged losses of Indian aircrafts would constitute a humiliation of the Indian military according to analysts."

Could anyone verify this source? The link seems to open the only the normal The Washington Post's website. Where does this "New" come from? Withmoralcare (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, looks like an error. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Withmoralcare (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Image of the Indian aircraft carrier

What is the relevancy of this? Yes, India does have an aircraft carrier. Congratulations. Its much smaller neighbor doesn't. What is this image meant to convey? Is it suppose to mean that India is superior to its smaller neighbors? It should be removed in my opinion. It's obviously shared by the Indian government to gloat about its self-perceived power projection following a conflict which ended in a clear stalemate. And does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:ONUS. Ecrusized (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is of including that whole "naval deployments" section either. The conflict was entirely land and air based, there’s no evidence that the Indian Navy’s presence had any real impact on the course of events. The details seem to come entirely from Indian claims and read more like posturing than something encyclopedically relevant. Maybe this was the “navy operation” that destroyed Karachi Port? (Spoiler: it didn’t.) JayFT047 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, I removed the Pakistani Navy & Indian Navy from the infobox a few days ago, but it looks like someone readded them. Ecrusized (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

India "said" that they have used all three of their forces in these operations. @JayFT047 you need to go through transcripts before making assumptions of "navy operation at Karachi". Truth Layer 123 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So, should we remove this section now since it's irrelevant? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. The Indian Navy claimed it had deployed its carriers, as also reported by The Telegraph. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

True, there is international news sources reporting Indian Naval deployment, and in The Indian Armed forces briefings, it was clearly mentioned that they had deployed thier Navy on standby to attack Karachi. So it should be kept as it is. Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Same thought. The image doesn't have any relevancy with the article. Prober90 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to add a new point in "Result" section

I think we should add a subclause in the "Result" section that "Both sides claim victory".Since,the Pakistani government is celebrating it's own victory day while the Indian government also claims that it's military operation went successfully. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That does not comply with MOS:VICTORY. The current version seems fine. Orientls (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

But,this was done in the page on the Battle of Gurung Hill. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe due to lack of info back then. For now let the Results section be Ceasefire Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the source

The article states In the early hours of May 10, India accused Pakistan of launching missile attacks on Indian air bases including the Sirsa air base. India retaliated with attacks on several Pakistan air bases, including Nur Khan, Rafiqi, and Murid. while the cited Guardian source states On Saturday, India accused Pakistan of launching strikes on dozens of airbases and military headquarters across north India, using long-range weapons, drones and fighter aircraft. The accusations came a few hours after Pakistan said India had fired six surface-to-air missiles targeting three of Pakistan's most important military bases early on Saturday morning. It is evident from the wording of the source that India was accusing Pakistan of strikes that were, in fact, retaliatory actions under Operation Buniyan-ul-Maroos following India's initial strikes on Pakistani airbases. However, the Wikipedia article presents this in reverse. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit in question was made by RogerYg just some hours ago. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Why do you keep reverting with the claim that undiscussed contentious changes should not go in the lead? Do you consider this a discussed and uncontentious change to begin-with? If undiscussed contentious changes are not allowed in the lead, can we revert that edit as well and restore the version prior to it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion concerning it would be this, where @Kautilya3 had raised a series of objections and the discussion about the same had taken place. Although it was not immediately resolved, with a few edits in between they accepted that most of the concerns had been resolved and struck the POV template they had placed, with no user raising any further objection.

If you have concerns with the lead, you can raise them here, but when you know that your changes have been challenged (see below in this same discussion) with no consensus, you should not unilaterally reinstate your preferred version of the lead. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp I have read the entire discussion, and I do not see any approval for the edit referenced in the diff I included above. So, following your logic, can we also revert that undiscussed and contentious change? Moreover, the discussion you cited focuses more on the inclusion of so-called Godi media and Al Jazeera as sources. However, as I have pointed out, The Guardian—which some editors praised—is being misrepresented in that paragraph. Could someone please explain why, if we are including the Indian claim, we cannot also include the Pakistani claim, which is mentioned in the same source? Additionally, can anyone provide an independent third-party source confirming that Pakistan hit Sirsa before India attacked three Pakistani airbases? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Indian press briefings were during the day time. The same source also says: The Indian army alleged its attack on Pakistan’s military bases on Saturday was in retaliation for high-speed missiles fired at several air bases in Punjab at around 2 am. Please free to check the live blogs posted by various newspapers, including Al Jazeera. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The same source also states Pakistan's version of events was different to that of India. In an address broadcast on state TV at around 3.30am, the military spokesperson Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry claimed India had struck first, using fighter jets to fire surface-to-air missiles at Nur Khan, Murid and Shorkot military bases. He said the "majority" of India's missiles were intercepted by air defence systems., then why are we including only India's claim and not Pakistan's? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

But we have independent reports of a medium/long range missile getting intercepted over Sirsa around midnight. Time-stamped videos are available on social media. We don't know how many such missile attacks came. This one resulted in explosions at low altitudes and so got everybody's attention. Associated Press of Pakistan mentioned this attack along with others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If we are including the Indian claim that Pakistan attacked first, and there is also a Pakistani claim that India struck first, then what is wrong with mentioning that Pakistan claims India attacked first, alongside India's claim, for NPOV reasons? Where does the APP source state that the attack on Sirsa took place before India targeted three Pakistani airbases? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

By "India" and "Pakistan", I generally mean the state authorities, not the media that are considered WP:RS. Indian media investigated the Sirsa interception on their own and published it. It is not an "Indian claim". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Please provide the sources that explicitly state Pakistan hit Sirsa before India struck three Pakistani airbases. Also, by your logic, if a Pakistani WP:RS states that India attacked Pakistani airbases first before Pakistan launched a strike on Sirsa, then we should be able to include that as an independent claim—just as Indian media claims are being treated as independent claims by you? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why you need such a source. When we know the times of the events, we are able to arrange them chronologically. If a Pakistani RS states the opposite, we would need to check the basis of its claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not the correct approach, nor is it a neutral one. If there are conflicting accounts, there is no reason not to include them with proper attribution. All I am requesting is the inclusion of Pakistan’s claim that India struck first, which is supported by an independent source, The Guardian. I am not disputing what is reported in Indian sources or claimed by the Indian government; I am simply saying that the Pakistani claim deserves to be presented alongside it. @Orientls — was there any prior consensus that only independent sources should be used to cite independent information, and that Indian and Pakistani sources should be used exclusively for their respective national claims? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been like that since 2019 Balakot airstrike that we are strictly supposed to disallow any Indian or Pakistani publications, including those who closely align with their governments, for the information that requires third party sources. Orientls (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The situation with the Balakot strike was different. At that time, the Indian government made vague claims, refused to share any evidence and claimed that its word should be believed, whereas Pakistan government denied there was any damage. We didn't know which side to believe and therefore excluded all Indian and Pakistani sources.

This time, the Indian government shared evidence, which got verified by independent sources. Pakistani claims were also specific enough to be cross-checked by independent sources.

Pakistani officials, according to state media, said their forces had “destroyed” India’s Udhampur air base. The family of one Indian soldier has confirmed his death on the base. But an image from May 12 does not appear to show damage.

So we have more transparency this time, and I don't believe the same restraint as in the Balakot case is warranted.

Of course, relying on third country sources would be ideal, when available. But what is meant by "third country" is not clear either. The third country sources often employ local reporters, and local scholars or specialists write for international publications etc. So we have to go by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of Sirsa attack, the Indian government said nothing other than to deny any damage. The Indian newspapers heard the local reports about a missile interception and published the details. This had nothing to do with government claims.

If SheriffIsInTown wants to add Pakistani RS, he is welcome to do so in the body first. If it is lead-worthy we can contemplate adding it to the lead. But claims like "India struck first" are not tenable. Plenty of Pakistani attacks throughout the night of 9-10 May are reported in the livefeeds, and what about the eight missile attacks reported the previous night, some on military bases? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Hatf-1 in the Infobox

The Indian Army AD Unit recently showcased debris of intercepted Hatf-1 SRBMs.

Because it was showcased directly by the Army, I think it should be added into the Indian claims of interceptions of the infobox. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 please look into this matter. I think linguistic barriers are hindering Non-Indian editors from understanding the linked reference video. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked onto it, and HATF-1 SRBMs Destroyed should be added into Indian Claims section, as is showcased by the Indian Army. @Cdr. Erwin Smith@Kautilya3 please update the info box as per the article above Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Is not ANI an Indian news channel, and not an official government body? Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all ANI is not a news channel, its a news agency more like Reuters, Thompson Reuters infact is a minority stakeholder by 49 percent in ANI. Secondly, its present not only in India but in various countries in South Asia, Middle East and Japan. And Thirdly, ANI and Reuters have partnered since 2018, where ANI news content will be available on Reuters connect. So it's just not another Indian news channel, its a News agency with Reuters in board both with shares and partnership. Hope that clarifies. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/reuters-and-ani-expand-partnership-idUSKBN1J705M/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to "Are they an official Indian government source?". Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/prasar-bharati-has-extended-contract-with-ani-media-for-two-more-years-ib-ministry/articleshow/98736223.cms?from=mdr Hope this answers your query, where the Indian IB Minister said the govt Public brodcastor Prasar Bharti has extended it's contract with ANI to provide live feed to DD news, a govt news group owned by Prasar Bharti. I just provided you the correct facts, now it's upto you. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No it does not, yes or no is all that needs to be said, what is the statement issued BY the Idian government, or by ANI? So right now, NO we should add a media claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I knew the reliability factor would be brought up. That's why I said it should be included 'Because it was showcased directly by the Indian Army'. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly @Slatersteven Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability has not been brought up wp:undue has, this is not an official claim, and until the government issues an official statement, I stay with no, and that is my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Most part of the official briefings were done by Military personnel from the very beginning of the conflict, more so in case of Pakistan which was entirely done by the DGISPR.

Official statements given by Military personel Wg.Cdr. Vyomika Singh and Col. Sofiya Qureshi during the conflict "There were also several high-speed missile attacks noticed subsequently after 0140 hours in the night at several air bases in Punjab" corroborates the visuals in video and the Army Major's statement who identifies himself as one of the 'Air Defenders of Punjab'.

That being said, I respect your viewpoint. I request other editors to share their thoughts on this topic @Withmoralcare @captain jack sparrow@Rosguill@Kautilya3. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Folks, this is going nowhere, Please drop it. If there is a WP:SECONDARY source covers it, we can revisit the issue. Right now, it is a pointless request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand. If the Army itself is claiming something it intercepted, how is it giving undue weightage ?

In that case, should Pakistani DGISPR claims be omitted too ?

Aren't Armed Forces the primary source of information in all armed conflicts?

They do the fighting, others only report it. So if a comment is coming directly from the Army, why is it deemed WP:UNDUE ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was mentioning not only ANI, there are 10+ Indian news sources showing the Indian Army press brief in which they show debris of PL 15 MISSILES, YIHA loitering munitions and HATF-1. I don't see a reason why they can't be included in Indian Claims section, by citing WP:UNDUE? It's the Army's claim after-all. Go ahead @Cdr. Erwin Smith Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If there are 10+ sources, then share them here. If they qualify as RS, it can be added. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

They are now blocked, they cant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we add that 300-400 drones were shot down in the Indian claim section? 1 - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It's already added, and the number is much higher. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t see that. By the way, did government sources say that 600 drones were shot down, or is it just Indian media? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Government sources corroborated by military sources speaking to the Indian media. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

My fellow editor, this report from an WP:RSP is showing the same debris as showcased in the video I referred to before. So now a secondary source is also corroborating the statement of the 'Serving' Army Major in the video.

I don't think there will be any more problems in adding HATF-1 SRBMs in the list of Indian interceptions @CapnJackSp @Kautilya3 Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this an official Indian government statement? Also does these mention the Hatf-1? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought you already had your last word. But since you asked, Yes.

The Indian Army is a part of the Indian government. It is one of the three branches of the Indian Armed Forces, and the Indian Ministry of Defence is responsible for coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government related to national security and the armed forces, including the Indian Army. The President of India is the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces.

So what the MEA Transcript stated on May 10th is now being specified, elaborated and corroborated by not only the 'Serving' Army Major of the Army AD Unit by showing the debris of intercepted targets including the Hatf-1, but also by a secondary WP:RSP. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I was responding to your claim that there is now (in effect) consensus, and read wp:or, unless you can provide a quote where the source says this was debris from a Hatf-1, the source does not support the claim. So, yes there are still problems adding it. And until I say explicitly add it, assume I object. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We can include Hatf-1 claims via this link, https://www.wionews.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-indian-army-displays-pakistani-missile-debris-watch-1747647949093

@Slatersteven DanBritton (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You can just search Indian army show debris in YouTube, and you'll get several non WP:RSN Indian sources that can be included here, like The Print, NDTV, ANI News, NewsX Live, The Tribune etc. So any of them can be used here. DanBritton (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesnt name the system, we could add "missiles intercepted" based on this though. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Go to 1:21 in the video cited on the WION article, it clearly mentions HATF-1 fragments intercepted. @CapnJackSp DanBritton (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2025

Change the sentence in the second paragraph from "According to Pakistan, the Indian strikes hit civilian areas, including mosques" to "According to Pakistan, the Indian strikes hit civilian areas, including Muslim religious sites." as Pakistan not only claimed that India's strikes attacked mosques but also madrasas. Both are collectively Muslim religious sites. Lahndi Chokra (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Terror base

Also add that bhawalpur and Muridke site has been added to UN terror base list since long time and Pakistan defence minister accepted that Pakistan has actively supported terrorism for 3 decades 2409:4090:101D:E03:A1B4:E430:A13A:C251 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Look at https://sro.mofa.gov.pk/sro-details/97 where ministry of foreign affairs pakistan is verifying the same that these are UN terror bases. Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Quote? Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would guess that they're looking at the details in section A. Individual where it identifies Abdul Rehman Makki as subject to sanctions in relation to affiliation with LeT (and further asserted connection to ISIL/AQ), and gives his address as Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab Province, Pakistan. But using this to infer that bombed locations in Muridke were being used as terror bases or that this is a UN designation is WP:SYNTH, in addition to questionable use of a 2-year old primary source for a value-laden label with significant broader political implications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I was assuming they were not breaching wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

look at this even Reuters article is telling that these are UN identified terror organizations and we got a proof of their addresses via Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan notice as per UNSC and Interpol. I don't find a reason why it violates the wp:or and wp:synth. Adding onto that the same site was bombed by India, ie Tayyiba Markaz in Muridke which is mentioned in the above notice by MoFA Pakistan. Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/who-are-pakistan-based-let-jem-groups-targeted-by-indian-strikes-2025-05-07/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Reuters said: "India says it struck Muridke's Markaz Taiba, a site about 25 km (16 miles) from the border, where the Mumbai attackers had been trained. The term Markaz means headquarters."

S.R.O. 29(I)/2023 published by MoFA Pakistan mentions the address of Abdul Rehman Makki, deputy Amir/Chief of LASHKAR-E-TAYYIBA (LET) as: "Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab Province, Pakistan."

But, he was pronounced dead in 2024. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking my previous comments regarding the militant links of the sites, Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 6#Sky news reports in Muzaffarabad indian missile destroyed a mosque and school.

The sites targetted at Bahawalpur and Muridke may or may not be providing actual arms training to militants aka be terrorist training camp or jihadist camps. But they are definitely linked to the JeM and the LeT. This is confirmed by reports in local Pakistani media itself as can be seen here and here. ... We should not mislead readers into thinking that these were random sites which had nothing to do with militant groups.

Gotitbro (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed @Gotitbro Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that any context you provide must be neutral. There certainly is value to describing why India committed these particular acts. However what Wikipedia cannot do is suggest that India's description of those sites was correct absent neutral verification from reliable secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

My reply was originally to a user who suggested (as have multiple here on this Talk page) that these were random mosques and madras which is not the case (as shown by Pakistani reports themselves). As I say in my reply above, India's decsription of these are terror camps may or may not be true but these are definitely linked to terror/militant groups banned in Pakistan itself. Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Proof of one of those sites is given by the Pakistani MoFA as provided in the thread above, citing that they are UNSC-INTERPOL dedicated terror camp with address matching as Indias claim. @Gotitbro is correct in mentioning it Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That failed wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro there appear to have been problems with your citations claiming this has been linked to terror or militant groups banned by Pakistan. Can you please provide a reliable secondary source supporting these claims? Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Slater is talking about the initial MoFa link by another user above. I linked to original reporting from Pakistani newspapers themselves which clearly link these sites to militant groups, will quote what I said in my original reply:

The connection of these sites to the militant groups/their leaders has been given above sourced from local Pakistani media itself. Linking again, see Daily Jang ([43]) for Muridke and LeT; see a local Bahawalpur newspaper about Bahawalpur and Masood Azhar. ([44])

Gotitbro (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

So where do these say these were terror bases (quotes please)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

These sources seem insufficient for your claim being honest. The second one doesn't mention the political character of the destroyed mosque at all. The first one implies it had a connection to jihadi ideologues but a single newspaper making a single link between a destroyed building and ideologues is a very tenuous connection. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about sources referring to Bhawalpur or Muridke sites having terror infrastructure but NYT confirms two infrastructure of these terror outfits being hit in strike must give a slight clue. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

First a reply to Slater, see my original reply. I clearly say these may or may not be terrorist camps. What I am asserting is that these mosques/madras are clearly linked to militant groups.

Coming to Simon's assesment. My assertion is that these are connected to militant groups/their leaders, that these links appear in Pakistani newspapers themselves says something. I can bring academic sources which say as much (Bahawalpur and Muridke are well known JeM amd LeT hubs respectively, see their enwiki articles for the same) but my focus was on the current crisis and its coverage in Pakistani media itself. Quoting translation from Daily Jang (it does not simply imply a connection, it lays it out quite clearly and explicitly) [one of the most prominent Urdu newspapers in Pakistan shouldn't be discounted so easily]:

"In response to the Pahalgam tragedy, India has been in the news ever since missiles were fired at the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Tayyiba, among other places, under "Operation Sindoor". ... It was customary to take a walk on the railway track in the morning or evening, which sometimes went as far as Nangal Sadan, where the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba headquarters is now. In fact, the current Tayyaba Center was built before my eyes. Among its architects, from Hafiz Saeed to Professor Zafar Iqbal, Mr. Amir Hamza, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Yahya Mujahid, I not only had a personal acquaintance with everyone, but also conducted detailed interviews with Hafiz. ... How did Hafiz Saeed Sahib become a jihadi after progressing from a lecturer in Islamic studies at the Engineering University?
... He got lost in this and asked me to join his organization. ... With great difficulty, I explained to him and thought for the future that I would never bring innocent minds here. I know how many young people who joined Hafiz Sahib’s army and instead of being a support for their elderly parents, became the last straw.

For the Bahawalpur report, I agree the connection is only implied in that the death of Masood Azhar's family is reported at the JeM mosque; but connections are not explicitly laid out. Older Pakistani reports say the same, but as I said my focus was on current coverage of the conflict in Pakistani media. Otherwise refs exist on the respective enwiki pages which verify these very connections and I can bring them here if need be. I am not looking to include this material in our article here but opposing claims (and attempts to introduce them in this article) that these are merely random civilian sites. Gotitbro (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

From another contemporary report from Nawa-i-waqt which lays the same ([45]):

Muridke is a town in Sheikhupura District of Punjab Province, Pakistan, about 40 kilometers north of Lahore. It should be noted that this town, located on the outskirts of Lahore, has also been in the news in the past due to the Jamaat-ud-Dawa center 'Dawat-ul-Irshad' [both LeT front organizations]. ... In the past, this place was the center of welfare activities of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its affiliates, for which education complexes and health centers were built, but after the organization was banned, the Pakistani government took over its management and started using it as a center for providing facilities to the public. ... Ahmedpur Sharqia is a historic town in the Bahawalpur district of Pakistan's Punjab province. It should be noted that the central headquarters of the banned organization Jaish-e-Mohammad is also located in Bahawalpur, and the Madrasa al-Sabir and Jamia Masjid Subhan are part of it. In a statement issued by Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar after the Indian operation, ten members of his family and four close associates were confirmed to have been killed ...

And another one from Nai Baat ([46]):

Indian aircraft hit the Subhan Mosque in Ahmedpur Sharqia near Bahawalpur, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa headquarters mosque in Muridke ...

Gotitbro (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025

Please include citations from this article by Colin Clark in the analysis section

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/what-air-defense-lessons-can-be-learned-from-the-india-pakistan-conflict/

“India probably calculates that its strikes heightened the costs for Pakistan to remain a permissive environment for terrorist groups,” Heriot-Darragh wrote. “But I’m not sure those costs were enough to shape Islamabad’s strategic outlook. In the meantime, New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs. This is worrying given the stakes involved.

Pant also noted another aspect of the air war: that India’s air defense appears to have “performed remarkably well.” The core of that system is the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), a networked command and control system designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats.

“If you look at the kind of projectiles that were launched towards India, whether drones, whether missiles, whether other munitions,” Pants said, “it’s remarkable how little damage India suffered and how its air defenses managed to hold. So I think from India’s vantage point, the air defenses actually performed remarkably.”

Pant made the calculation that India has “shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps, before that was not would not have been clear to Pakistan. So,” he said, “I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signaling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create a new level of deterrence.” Srik84 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Srik84, it should be added in the Analysis section. Breaking Defense (based out of New York City) is a digital news leader on the strategy, politics and technology of global defense. Also Colin Clark is the Indo-Pacific bureau chief of Breaking Defense, who has a wide range of experience in analyzing several Air, Land and Naval Warfares across the Globe as seen on the Breaking Defense website. Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Srik84@Kautilya3 please look onto it Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is an independent RS as I mentioned above, and Colin Clark the author is the Indo-Pacific bureau chief of Breaking Defense with wide range of Defense articles as seen on the website. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So this article should be added in the Analysis section after reaching consensus, as it tick marks all the "to-haves" wrt credibility, neutrality and relevancy. @Slatersteven@Kautilya3@CapnJackSp please do the needful. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hope this will be added soon as it is meeting the required criteria Srik84 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven@CapnJackSp citations from this article are still not included in the analysis section. Srik84 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

What does it add we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Two points

1. The response is the military benchmark for responding to terrorism.

2. Air defense systems and how well they did the job. This point is not present in any of the citations in the analysis section. Srik84 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is one source, so (at best) I would need to see any suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggested text:

Kim Heriot-Darragh, a fellow at the Indian Institute at the University of Melbourne wrote," New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs.This is worrying given the stakes involved.

Harsh pant,an defense analyst also notes another aspect of the air war: that India defense appears to have "performed remarkably well".The core of that system is the Integrated Air command and Control System (IACCS). A networked command and Control System designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats.

Pant made the calculation that India has " shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps before that was would have been clear to me Pakistan.So, he said," I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signalling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create new level of deterrence. Srik84 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I have give the text. There is one typo in last paragraph so I corrected it here:

Pant made the calculation that India has " shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps before that was not would not have been clear to Pakistan.So, he said," I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signalling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create new level of deterrence Srik84 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, there are some punctuation errors to correct, before it can be put up. DanBritton (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We already cover increased levels of deterrence, And that India's air force did well, as well as India demonstrating its ability to strike targets deep in Pakistan, so all those adds is that it sets a new Benchmark in response. Which (it can be argued) is kind of covered with everything else. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven please add these citations.one is on bench Mark and another one on air defense.

Kim Heriot-Darragh, a fellow at the Indian Institute at the University of Melbourne wrote," New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs.This is worrying given the stakes involved.

Harsh pant,an defense analyst also notes another aspect of the air war: that India defense appears to have "performed remarkably well".The core of that system is the Integrated Air command and Control System (IACCS). A networked command and Control System designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats Srik84 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven you can also add below point to the above para in the previous comment

If you look at the kind of projectiles that were launched towards India, whether drones, whether missiles, whether other munitions,” Pant said, “it’s remarkable how little damage India suffered and how its air defenses managed to hold. So I think from India’s vantage point, the air defenses actually performed remarkably.” Srik84 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, if that's the fact then, there are multiple articles citing Pakistan so-called Diplomatic edge over US intervention and regarding the aerial dual as well. Like their is nothing new in the Diplomatic and the Atlantic Council articles when compared to the NYT and FT ones. So should we remove them as well? I suggest in adding the Breaking Defence article, as it has several new observations made by two reputed defence commentators DanBritton (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to this point Srik84 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025 (2)

add in analysis

Pakistan couldn't protect its own nuclear weapons': Top air warfare historian Tom Cooper calls India the clear winner

https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-couldnt-protect-its-own-nuclear-weapons-top-air-warfare-historian-tom-cooper-calls-india-the-clear-winner/amp_articleshow/121161557.cms 2409:40C1:2016:8A1E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. See Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Austrian historian (Tom_Cooper). Orientls (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Tenure Extension of Pakistan's Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed

To be added in impact session.

Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu, currently in his fourth year as head of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), was granted a second tenure extension 'in recognition of his operational excellence'.

Air chief Zaheer Ahmed Babar’s tenure extended for strategic continuity - Daily Times

Air Chief Marshal gets extension after Operation Bunyanum Mursoos success

(3) Government of Pakistan on X: "In recognition of his operational excellence during Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos, the government has approved the extension of tenure for PAF Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu, honoring his continued leadership in safeguarding national airspace and strengthening aerial https://t.co/kYjcFgWNVM" / X

Nouman Aqil (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The News International?

One of the sources in the 'Analysis' section is The News International. To the best of my knowledge, it is a Pakistani media outlet? I was under the impression that neither Indian nor Pakistani sources are being used in this section for the sake of impartiality. Some clarity would be much appreciated. Withmoralcare (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Guess it has been removed now, some noob user might have used The News International (as a source), a newspaper of Jang Media Group of Karachi, which has an history of carrying heavy biases and reporting misinformation several times via its network of newspapers and TV channels. Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We do, what is it used as a cite for? Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Now removed, initially some user put up this pakistani source in analysis section without consensus. Issue resolved now. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. Withmoralcare (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no determination whatsoever that The News International is not a reliable source. Wikipedia policies permit the use of all reliable sources unless their unreliability has been established or they are listed at WP:RSP as unreliable or problematic. Several Indian media outlets are listed at WP:RSP as unreliable or questionable; this is not the case with Pakistani sources. I have not come across any independent reports suggesting that The News International is a biased source or known for disseminating fake news, unlike the recent reports about Indian media, including one by The New York Times. The video of Christine Fair's interview with Karan Thapar is available on YouTube, and it clearly confirms that The News International accurately reported what Fair actually said. This appears to be a completely unfounded excuse to exclude Pakistani sources or this specific analysis. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We are refraining from using Indian and Pakistani sources in the Analysis section. So the News International is a Pakistani newspaper owned by Jung Group is not supposed to be used here. And the Wire was banned by Indian govt. for Publishing unverified and fake news, so both of the media sources you mentioned should be not used here as per agreed by the consensus here a few days ago Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truthprevails999 We are using Christine Fair's words with proper attribution — the video is available for anyone to verify what she said. I do not understand why we are refraining from using The News International in the analysis section. Where is the Wikipedia policy that prohibits its use? The News International is simply reporting what Fair said during that interview. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The same way how indian news sources were refrained here, citing biases even when they had people like John spenser and Tom cooper interviewing there. The consensus to use no Indian and Pakistani sources here was reached here last week and we are all following it. Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

and yes, The News International and Jung group have been accused of hoaxing and Publishing anti India news along with several other Pakistani papers by The Guardian in the below article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-fake-cables-pakistan-apologies Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Even the Voa news (American govt funded) reported it,

https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistani-papers-retract-fakewikileaks-accounts--111668904/166750.html

And here is another guardian article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/09/pakistani-newspaper-fake-leaks-india Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This happened 15 years ago, and at the time, they had the integrity to admit their mistake and issue an apology. How can they be discredited based on a 15-year-old incident, especially in contrast to the jingoism displayed by Indian media during this conflict? Is there any report indicating that The News International engaged in fake reporting during this particular conflict? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Look at all The Independent, The DW, Washington Examiner links given in the Misinformation section of this article, you'll get an idea that what fake reporting the Pakistani media did during this conflict. Btw who needs a media source to lie when you have official govt. of Pakistan X handle sharing Arma 3 video clips. Hypocrisy at Peak. Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Many Indian sources are listed at WP:RSP as unreliable or questionable, whereas no Pakistani source appears in that list. This New York Times article specifically discusses misinformation in Indian media. What kind of logic is it to argue that, since Indian media cannot be used due to biased reporting, Pakistani media should also be excluded by default? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan ranked below India in the World Press Freedom Index published by RSF at place 158. So we avoid using such biased sources as per discussed in the consensus earlier, and only use reputable international sources in the Analysis section. Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truthprevails999 Did you watch the video I shared? Did Christine Fair say something different from what The News International reported? Moreover, this is just your personal opinion. Would you be willing to take the source to WP:RSN? As I understand it, unless a source is proven to be unreliable at WP:RSN, you cannot simply decide on a talk page that it cannot be used. That goes directly against core Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A fair share of fake news was spread during the conflict by the Pakistani media as well.

Pakistani sources not being in the RS list doesn't negate this reality, nor does it ensure its reliability. You should know better as a veteran. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cdr. Erwin Smith You cannot simply label one of the biggest media houses from a country as unreliable unless it has been formally determined to be so. Would you kindly take the matter to WP:RSN and establish that it is unreliable? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Geo News owned by the same Jung Group as The News, had live broadcasting where the anchors were saying that 70 percent of Indias power grid is inactive in a attack by Pakistan. The same was mentioned in many other Pakistani papers and channels. It was the biggest fake news that emerged in this conflict after the ARMA-3 video shared by Govt of Pak of course. So they shouldn't be included at all. Truthprevails999 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truthprevails999 How does a fake video shared by a minister equate to the unreliability of The News International? I have yet to see whether the claims about the Power Grid were the result of independent reporting or were attributed to a minister or government official. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have to, as the onus of proving it's reliability is not on me.

Several Indian media outlets were also prevented from this section, despite them quoting foreign individuals. It's a consensus we have to follow, or open the floodgates for all foreign interviews present in the Indian sources.

I have nothing else to say. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The onus to prove that a source is unreliable lies with the editor seeking to exclude it, not the other way around. Otherwise, anyone could simply label a source as unreliable and exclude it based on personal disagreement with its coverage. The consensus you are referring to goes beyond any established Wikipedia policy. As far as I understand, consensus must be grounded in policy. The Indian media sources that were excluded may already be listed at WP:RSP or have been deemed unreliable at WP:RSN. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

For something to be excluded, it needs to be included first. It's reliability should've been verified before including it at the first place.

There have been several such occasions of arbitrary edits which were reverted later on in this page. Something which was supposed to be done before, is being done now.

And yes, there are several sources like this one which is neither there in WP:RSP nor on which a clear consensus is reached at in the WP:RSN. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If you look onto the WP:RSP page in the Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, which was mentioned here, its clearly mentioned that certain sections in this papers are dedicated for brand contents with examples of some given like Brand Wire section of ABP, Brand Post section of Hindustan times and so on. And while most of them mentions wheather its a branded content, the editors are advised to exercise caution and check the reliability of factual claims if they get the tone like a branded advert. No where it is mentioned to simply ignore all this sources citing WP:RSP, as done by some editors here. Even CNN operates Create via CNN International Commercial Division for brands and BBC has BBC StoryWorks section for sponsored adverts. All major international news sources have a brand advert section, in today's day and age. Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have the same argument for adding John Spenser and Tom Coopers analysis, as it was thier personal opinion also when they interviewed several Indian news channels which are not in WP:RSN. Even they should be included according to you? Wikipedia cannot be biased and should be neutral always. Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truthprevails999 I am not privy to the analyses you are referring to and therefore unable to offer an informed opinion. As long as the analysis is properly attributed to a notable expert and it can be verified that their views are not being misrepresented, in my view, there should be no issue with including them. The platform on which they expressed their opinion is irrelevant. I have been unable to find an article on Tom Cooper, so his notability may be questionable compared to C. Christine Fair. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also the credibility of the Wire where the interview was taken is low too. They were involved in a number of scandels and controversies as reported by the BBC and 360info which reduces thier credibility and should not be included here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63226111.amp

https://360info.org/indias-wire-scandal-a-lesson-for-media/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We are not presenting the views of Karan Thapar; we are sharing the views of C. Christine Fair. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Christine Fair is highly controversial, She has had a terrific past of doing discrimination and Islamophobia (Asra Nomani 2017 dispute), Anti feminism (Brett Kavanaugh 2018), Richard Spensor controversy where she called him a NAZI, Even the German police held her at Frankfurt airport calling them Nazi Police. She had a long list of controversies wrt Academic freedom, free speech in Georgetown Uni, which show she is not a relevant neutral commentor either. Truthprevails999 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We can source the interview from The Wire directly (an RS determined from numerous RSN discussions despite protestations here to litigate against consensus) and avoid this hiccup. Gotitbro (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The credibility of the Wire is too low to be put up here (Look at the BBC and 360info articles mentioned above to validate it), as decided on the consensus where we refrain from putting Indian and Pakistani sources here. We will follow it here. We are not cherrypicking hereTruthprevails999 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Wire have had an history of peddling fake news, they even published a fake email saying it was of a Meta employee and later had to remove it, as reported by BBC article below.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63226111.amp Truthprevails999 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Truthprevails999 You cannot form a consensus that is not grounded in policy. WP:RS allows all sources until they are determined unreliable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As if it was solely done by me, there was a concensus reached by lot of editors that no Pakistani and Indian news sources should be put up here in Analysis citing biases, scroll above and find it yourself. We can't limit it to one sided narrative here. Every source to be used here as per discussed i.e. Wire, The News International falls in the same category and should be refrained here until a reverse consensus is reached to use both Ind, Pak sources here. End of Discussion till them. Truthprevails999 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Watching the actual interview ([47]), it has indeed become clear that TNI only included parts which were suitable to the Pakistan narrative. C. Christine Fair's analysis is more nuanced than what the included text for the analysis section suggests. Specifically "20% of Pakistan's air force" damage is a claim by the Indian Express (laid out in the interview itself) not Indian officials and as such irrelevant for our analysis. Her statements about IAF/PAF losses are interesting but in the interview itself she herself disclaims being an "avionics expert". She also repeatedly states that her analysis is based on news reports in the international media (though she appears to erroneously believe that 2 Rafales were shot down based on these very reports, something which these reports never say).

She also mentions damage at PAF bases, Pakistan undergrounding its militant proxies due to the Indian attacks, Pakistani fear of nuclear disablement by India after Nur Khan etc.

I think the addition as a whole here is WP:UNDUE, firstly due to the clearly biased summarization of the interview by TNI and secondly because we cannot accurately summarize her views on our own.

Her analysis based on news reports and her clearly saying she is a non-expert in aviation also make me question the relevance of her views for the aerial conflict. For her views on the the security implications/legacy of this conflict, of which she is an expert, I would wait for published material. Gotitbro (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The huge passage sourced to The News International in this version] is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RGW. It doesn't belong in the main space, irrespective of the sources etc. WP:VNOTSUFF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

True that @Kautilya3, we can end this discussion right here. Truthprevails999 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If Fair was commenting on historical context or something, it might have warranted inclusion. But non-expert opinions being put up in the analysis section is absurd.

There is much commentary there that qualifies for little more than a rehashing of select news than actual "analysis", the section desperately needs a rewrite. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

They put up Fair thought on Aerial fights, even though a consensus was reached here to not us it citing her inexpertise in the matter (by taking her own words in the Wire interview), this time they have used a Pakistani biased source there to back it up. Kindly remove that section as per discussed here. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Veritasphere, you added text regarding Fair's analysis of aerial combat, citing it to FP. As I am unable to access the source, could you provide an archived source of the article? The article seems to focus on something else, the material seems to be undue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be removing Fair's comments (see comments above), unless why they are WP:DUE is proven otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, even my point was the same in the Express News discussion below. It better be removed for now DanBritton (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting removal of Yousuf Nazars section in Analysis section

Yousuf Nazar has only published 1 article in Al Jazeera which is this heavily biased one. He is a financial author as mentioned in his Al Jazeera bio and via is book published, but here he has given a so called analysis on Geo politics for the very first time. If you look at his twitter bio he often publishes articles for Dawn (a Pakistani newspaper which lies rock-bottom on credibility) and to add to that he does political commentary which is heavily biased for PMLN. So his opinion should be removed asap, as its neither credible, nor he has published any article (let alone geo political article) before this in Al Jazeera or any other reputed International news portal, and this is his first stint on it. @Kautilya3@Srik84@Withmoralcare@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Remove - It seems to be a non-notable opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct, it must be Removed asap with consensus. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection, he is not a subject matter expert. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur. Have removed his section. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this. The removal does make sense given the lack of appropriate expertise. Withmoralcare (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the same tune, are analysis by "Pakistani correspondents" notable enough to be carried in the section? I think we are giving an undue amount of weight to what are effectively news pieces. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you close this and make a separate fresh topic down regd. this author, considering this is a different matter and it should be up for discussion until consensus is reached. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Vincent Viola and John Spencer's article published on Small Wars Journal

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/22/indias-wake-up-call-why-us-defense-reform-must-match-the-speed-of-modern-war/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, can you please frame in and add the section 4 about Op. Sindoor from this article, we can use para 2, 3 and 7 which are relevant and use it under the Analysis section. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant frame and add here, so we can reach a Consensus. Small Wars Journal is a reputed journal covering worldwide disclosure and wars. So is John Spenser, who heads the MWI and has been on platforms like CNN, MSNBC, BBC, FOX NEWS, ABC and Reuters. And Vincent Viola is the founder of Madison Policy Forum. So now we got a John Spenser article published on an Independent forum on this topic which was not the case earlier. So I don't think of any reason that it must be ignored Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

See the talk page archive, Spencer has already been discussed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

But this is a new article on a neutral platform, Small Wars Journal based in US, also has a co author in Vincent Viola with reputed work. Also that earlier discussion about John Spenser didn't reach any consensus, his article was denied as he gave it to Indian News sources and not International ones, but now it's there in International source too. I feel this should be looked upon @Slatersteven@Kautilya3@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Who is Vincent Viola, and is small wars an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Vincent Viola is the founder of Madison Policy Forum headquartered in New York City. They are highly reputed and a credible think tank based out on all things defense and national security. And Small Wars Journal is an RS, as it has credible and detailed analysis on all defense issues by a wide range of defense and policy experts. So it can be considered to be added in the Analysis section. @Kautilya3@Slatersteven@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either The National Interest or Neue Zürcher Zeitung is an RS going strictly by the books.

Yet their analysis was used to mention that the aerial duel between both countries was as an "unambiguous victory" for Pakistan and Indian ops "turned into a disaster". Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, the so called defense analyst Brandon Weichert claimed 5 indian jets are downed by taking unambiguous Pakistani claims, he didn't even cross check it with a solid satellite proof via any international neutal agency and wrote a biased article which clearly is written for Chinese Military Complex paid by Beijing. He selectively only spoke on Aerial dual and not the whole conflict, because the Chinese air defense system wasn't worth it's money and failed to intercept Indian missiles which struck pakistan initially on the 9 terror targets and later on PAF air force bases. I wonder why such people's incomplete analysis are tolerated and the so called bi montly Magazines like National Intreast. Read Beijings Global Media Influence 2022 country report by freedomhouse.org and let the biased journalism unravel Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I read this article, This article can be added in the Analysis section considering the stature and expertise of both the authors. @Truthprevails999 @Cdr. Erwin Smith can you guys frame it for a draft. DanBritton (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025 (3)

In Casualties and Losses Section under Third Party:

Please remove those 3 aircrafts down in India section as there is no satellite evidence or wreckage for the same. This should be based on the objective evidence and not on some article in media as this is not an analysis section.

Under Pakistan Losses (in third party): Please add that the terror camps(or alleged terror camps) were hit for which we have all the evidence in the form of videos ( at the time they were hit and after the hit videos) across mainstream electronic media, social media etc., Srik84 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It has just become a useless loop of Some confidential sources saying and Media hovering over it without any research and publishing it. We should refrain from put it up here until some credible reports come from the Armed forces or the Manufacturer of the aircraft-Dassault Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That can be said about India's claim too. Personally, I would rather we removed all but confirmed casualties (and no, damaging buildings or bases are not casualties). Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There is satellite evidence for damage to terror infrastructure and PAF airbases from Maxar. Please check the NY times article, which has posted those pics. Srik84 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We also cite foreign news sources for the loss of 3 Indian aircraft. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, if you look at Indian armed forces meet, they provided satellite images and drone footage with time stamped on the Op. Sindoor, and Nyt and Washington Post verified it via Maxar. But on the other hand Pakistani armed forces didn't give any single proof or a satellite imagery and just did Whataboutery Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have had my say, a firm remove all or none. Its time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

But even in foreign media there is no wreckage evidence or satellite evidence for the aircrafts down. But even the foreign media has showed satellite imagery for the damage done to PAF airbases and terror camps. Srik84 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

true @Srik84, ig why no one is mentioning that. They (Pak AF) need credible satellite images, which they don't currently and neither any independent international media has it published Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Let it be as it is for now. End of discussion Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope this section will be updated as there is evidence. Srik84 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, hope so Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

IMO there is a need to modify the figure of "3", since that is not at all representative of the sources. Right now, Indian aircraft losses portion under third party claims is blatant SYNTH. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

True, there is no proof, leave alone a solid one. Just a infinite loop of because my classified source said so. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@CapnJackSpI still see 3 jets under losses for India under third party section. Can it be removed as there is no evidence. Srik84 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It is sourced, that is all the evidence we need for inclusion> Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It is improperly sourced though, since it fails to cover "all significant viewpoints" required under NPOV.
Sourcing alone is also not enough - See WP:VNOTSUFF. There are Synth issues as well, using a combination of claims to derive the highest possible count. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We do include India's POV, just not in a place that is not about India's POV. Nor is there any Synth, as we have a source saying 3. So I will bow out with a no to removal. Assume it remains no until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, I went through all the articles of Reuters, WP and found out there are irregularities in them with respect to the sources and considering the fact Reuters retracted their own article later makes it sound unreliable and shouldn't be included here. DanBritton (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025 (4)

Result section: Can be more informative. For India : Was able to do precision strikes on the terror camps and infrastructure, Was able to do precision on Pak Airbases, Air defense systems and other military infrastructure. Successfully defended airbases and military assets from Pak drones, UAVs, aircrafts and missiles. Claims that Deterrence has been established for the for future terror attacks in India

For Pak: Responded the Indian strikes with Drones, UAVs and missiles to damage the Indian airbase and military assets with very limited or no success. Srik84 (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We do not take sides, so we need independent analysis, and see the analysis section, its clear RS do not agree on the outcome. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

For now keep Result section as Ceasefire only. And in analysis section unfortunately we have only 1-2 credible war analysts (some being not added) and a lot of journos playing a loop on confidential sources without any credible research. So keep it as it is Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand neutrality is the key here but there is evidence for:

1. Terror camps in Pakistan getting hit - images, videos, satellite pictures

2. Pakistan air bases and air defense damage - satellite imagery from Maxar and also videos

3. Indian air bases - No damage as per satellite imagery.

So you should also highlight the truth as it should take the precedence if there is sufficient evidence. Srik84 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We go by what RS says, and there is nothing in wp:rs that says anything about it has to be supported by satellite imagery. If X says X we can report it, satellite imagery or not. And per wp:bludegon I have had my say, which is not change. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No one will get to a consensus on this, Some people with xtended Access rights often reverts the relevant changes without reaching any consensus. And for the American and European news sources being neutral is laughable, if you don't believe me kindly read the Beijing's Global Media Influence 2022 Country report by freedomhouse.org, its extensive reasearch and sting operations reveal that all major int. news players are sitting on China's lap and doing biased journalism to favour them, in return for getting heavy funding and kickbacks form Chinese govt and industrial complex. Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And I better keep my mouth shut for Al Jazeera, they are a bigot in the name of Journalism, almost every country has put legal actions, filed lawsuits and even banned them for spreading fake narratives and fueling hate, as seen on the Al Jazeera controversies wikipedia page. Even in this conflict they spread fake news of Indian women pilot being captured in Pakistan and shamelessly put it on air and website without verifying the credibility of the source. I wonder why is this not published under the Misinformation section here. Any reasons why it's isn't yet. @Kautilya3@Slatersteven@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If there is a secondary source that fact checks it, or even if Al Jazeera itself published a retraction accepting the above, its can be added. But we cant add our own OR regarding what some news org published. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree,we can no longer accept Al-Jazeera as a reputable source,it has become a mouthpiece of propaganda,spreading misinformation without credible evidence. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Results should be modified once the news hype dies down, only then will we get a dispassionate analysis of the events. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case then can you or moderators please remove the sentence in the analysis section where it is mentioned that there is no clear winner. This is a conclusion based only on some sources and it is not the correct stage to give any conclusion. Srik84 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That whole section needs a rewrite - it puts out dozens of conflicting opinions with no clear structure to them. I'll put up a proposal if I get time. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

sure, please do it asap. Srik84 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, kindly do it. Truthprevails999 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025 (5)

The last paragraph of the "Impact" section is about a "Professor from Ashoka University". He was arrested, and the case was fast tracked to the Supreme Court of India directly from a local court - a huge jump. The supreme court granted him interim bail. However, the court did not quash the charges against him, and ordered an inquiry by a special three member Special Investigation Team(SIT). .

Change suggestion 1: I suggest adding the following text at the end of the paragraph:

Later, the Supreme Court of India granted him interim bail, but declined to stay the investigation against him. The court ordered the constitution of a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the charges against him.

For reference, this specific text is also in the article related to this professor

Change suggestion 2: Change "accused of undermining national dignity" to "accused of endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India and promoting enmity between different groups" Shreekumar3d (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes agree on adding this updated information after the Supreme Court of Indias hearing. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

References

can we add RUSI in the analysis section?

I was thinking that since the analysis section is bloated we could remove few lines from there and add analysis from RUSI

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/calibrated-force-operation-sindoor-and-future-indian-deterrence

Retired Indian Navy officer and analyst C. Uday Bhaskar told Deutsche Welle that "India and Prime minister Modi had to respond to the 22 April attack because opposition parties and social media users were circulating clips of Modi criticizing former Prime minister Manmohan Singh for not retaliating after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Therefore, Modi had to prove that he could act on India's 'cross-border strike' policy by targeting locations such as Muridke and Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab province." Bhaskar added that "this narrative reinforces the aggressive image of 'India under Modi's leadership,' which follows a hardline and zero-tolerance policy against terrorism. It supports the narrative of Modi as a 'protector of Hindus,' which carries electoral benefits. The upcoming Bihar assembly elections will be a test for this narrative."

we could shorten the above paragraph.

Indian geostrategist and columnist Brahma Chellaney wrote in The Hill that "Trump undermined America's strategic partnership with India" by bailing out Pakistan through $2.4 billion IMF loan, portraying false equivalence between India (target of terror) and Pakistan (perpetrator of terror).

and remove this analysis.

DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove or shorten that, but we should add the Analysis from Rusi (Royal United Services Institute) a defense and security think tank based out of London since 1831. It qualifies as a RS and the author Walter Ladwig who is a senior lecturer on international relations at Kings College London and an expert in South Asian security issues with previous publications in relvent International sources like Washington Post. So it should be added. @DataCrusade1999@Slatersteven@Kautilya3@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should not remove anything from that, as to additions, I need to see what is suggested. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Walter Ladwig seems to be have expertise on the right kind of areas for our topic: South Asian security, counter-terrorism etc. His article recieved commendations from various experts on Twitter:

• Hussain Haqqani
• Ayesha Siddiqa
• Christopher Clary
• Derek Grossman

A dissenting note from Rabia Akhtar, though it is about the long-term strategic impact rather than the assessment of the conflict itself. I think this article as well as Akhtar's article should be main sources to be used for the Analysis section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

True, agree on what you said. Also look onto the Breaking Defense and the Small Wars Journal thread discussion, as even they seem to be reliable, relevent, neutral wrt Wiki Policies Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Truthprevails999 had requested on my T/P if I could add this - I went through it and added a summary of the article. The paragraph may be a bit wordy though, if anyone has any suggestions on cutting down on size without removing information, please post it here.
I've put it at the front of the section - As far as I could see, there was no apparent structure to the section, and as a tertiary source providing commentary on secondary sources, this seems far more apt in the "analysis" section than news sites. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've left out a bunch of stuff as well, since trying to include anything more might spread out the paragraph into WP:UNDUE territory. If there's anything important I missed, please let me know. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm worried that adding too much in the analysis section would make the whole article very big but if the consensus is that nothing should be removed or shortned then I'm fine with it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian Government Propoganda Page

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

---

Looks like this page is Indian Government Propoganda. Could this be more neutral? Hikmatyar Kassai (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not some whataboutery whatsapp chat. Don't tell me you want ARMA-3 videos here as given by the Pakistan Govt. Official X handle (as mentioned in the misinformation section by Washington Examiner). You suggest your changes from X to Y with supporting reasons citing relevent news sources and not blabber unnecessarily. And as per that Ashoka University proff thing, today he was ordered upon a three-member SIT to probe the charges against him for the case of undermining national security by the Supreme Court of India today.Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2025 (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.

Reliabilty

The place to challenge a sources status as an RS is wp:rsn, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

what for the image of CBG doing on the page, remove Hikmatyar Kassai (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

vikrant ship Hikmatyar Kassai (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hikmatyar Kassai don't talk crap, the user Slatersteven mentioned some info and you are replying with something else here. Kindly follow protocols and reach consensus here and don't just do whataboutery here. Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

consensus is made when differing opinions are present in the community, but here all you are like minded , probably sold to some russian arm seller in order to boast about s400 stuff Hikmatyar Kassai (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven the user is @Hikmatyar Kassai is violating several edit policies of Wikipedia, if you look at his Talk page, he is cussing @Rosguill who does new page patrol backlog and warned him of following wiki edit policies wrt WP:EDITREQUEST, even with some other user Cutlass he has done the same and made derogatory comments. Kindly take appropriate action against him. Even today his initiated talk page was banned due to WP:TRAINWRECK Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the place to discuss user conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Reuters Rafale fact check: It was not shot down

Hello,

  Under India's "Casualties and losses" section. 1 rafale shot down and reuters reference dated 9th May has been provided. However after 4 days , reuters fact check unit has clarified that no Rafale was shot down. This should be removed from causalities and losses section of India.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/2024-indian-jet-crash-image-falsely-shared-pakistan-downed-indian-jet-may-2025-2025-05-13/#:~:text=DOWNED%20JET%20RUMOURS&text=On%20May%207%2C%20Reuters%20reported,as%20yet%20unconfirmed%20by%20India. 2409:40C0:20:575:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This does not address the Americans' claim, but rather an online image. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

But another reason to remove all claims unless independently verfied. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

For now let's keep it as it is, you might have seen how messy it became in the Russia Ukraine war, where both countries were denying independent casualties and losses reports and there were just too many different independent reports with huge differences among them. I guess that's true reality of Modern day Conflicts, where every country wants to show their support to one or the other side by Publishing such reports hurriedly with missing facts and proofs. Even UN reports are different and are contradicting their own facts. Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I said the same thing there, lets just leave out any but actually confirmed casualties. Do we really need to know how many Drones were shot down? It really is just puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the reference used for raefal shot down, is reuters. A few days later reuters says it was not shot down. It makes thing look bad and contradictory 2409:40C0:101F:C55F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

REutar is a fake news factory. Recently, Reuters reported that the U.S. administration was considering new tariffs on European goods. The White House denied the claim, calling it as fake news. Reuters retracted the story 152.58.20.239 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump literally posted today that he's putting 50% tariffs on Europe June 1. Please don't spread misinformation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan itself mentioned that Tayyiba Markaz, Murdike was a terror camp

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

---

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt. Of Pakistan itself put out statutory notice that according to UNSC resolutions mentioned in the below notice, all financial resources should be freezed and travel should be put on hold on some key terrorists as per INTERPOL-UNSC notice. If you look into the very end of this article in the Individual section, the terrorist organization LET's address is provided as Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab, Pakistan. It is the same location where India carried out strikes. So this clearly proves that Muridke sight is not just alleged, but a real terror camp as per Interpol and UNSC notices (with approval by Syed Haider Shah, MoFA Pakistan. Now we can remove the terminology of alleged terror camp and put it as terror camp in case of Muridke and Bahawalpur (which is also identified as a terror camp by UN) sites, and change all the similar wordings used in the main article.

https://sro.mofa.gov.pk/sro-details/97 Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed (and how it failed wp:v) above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

reasonWP:NOTFORUM

Wha?!? I'm very sure that was a masjid in both cities, where people come to pray, not plan attacks. Not every mosque is Al-Qaida, just like how not every mandir is a scam call HQ, and not every church is a McDonalds. See those hurtful untrue stereotypes that still seem true worldwide to some people? Stereotypes went mainstream against mosques during the attacks, and Wikipedia should not value stereotypes more than they value a penny. Also, the big topic for the main aim of the attacks definitely needs at least 2 sources that are 100% neutral before we can add the main part of the article into full validation. Shahshagoose (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, Masjid At-Taiba does not mean LeT camp. 'Taiba' means 'pure'; "Mosque of Purity" not = "omg Osama bin Laden let's bomb it" Shahshagoose (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeted violations of WP:NPA are done by you. This place is for discussions regarding this article and not for throwing personal off- topic comments. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Shahshagoose Not every place of worship was targeted and mentioned as Militant hideout on this article. Places mentioned in this article are particularity used (UN) / being used (according to India) for militant activities. If you remember correctly, the family of a well known man "Masood Azhar" was killed in these bombings. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source ? The Indian Top Gun (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@ShahshagooseYou need to back your claims with credible sources. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2025 (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.

Protected edit request

1. Under the "Casualties" section, within the "Third-party sources" subsection on the Pakistan side:

−

Many defense systems damaged

+

NIL

2. Under the "Casualties" section, within the "Third-party sources" subsection on the India side:

Proposed addition:

−

+

Four Indian Air Force bases—Udhampur, Bhuj, Pathankot, and Bathinda-damaged during Pakistani strikes reported by Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference.

Why it should be changed:

The current claim about Pakistan's defense systems being damaged is sourced from a New York Times article authored by an Indian journalist based in New Delhi. The claim is only briefly mentioned and lacks any cited source, which fails Wikipedia's verifiability standards. This should be removed.

There is documented international coverage that Pakistani strikes damaged four Indian air bases, with confirmation from Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference. Including this makes the article more balanced and based on multiple independent sources.

39.62.128.108 (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

4 airbases limitedly damaged already exists, it is supposed to be on the Indian claim section and not third party sources. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It was reported by a third party source, thus it was meant to go for third party claims. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It was claimed by Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference... - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Dont spread lies by misrepresenting facts. Firstly, Mujib Mashal is the South Asian bureau cheif of NYT, not a just another correspondent from Delhi (his nationality is Afghan not Indian).

Secondly, while there is proof via satellite images given by Indian armed forces of the destruction of PAF sites, it is also verified and published by international papers such as NYT and Washington Post via Maxar imagery. While on the other hand there is no proof to Indian sites limitedly damaged anywhere (neither given by PAF, or in international papers). So we cant add it there in the third party sources unless its verified. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

If you open the article by Mujib Mashal, and click on the article cited by him as a source for air defence systems being damaged, you will see that the wording in the article is the following:

"Indian officials said they had responded forcefully, and claimed that they had targeted Pakistan’s air defense radars and systems at several locations"

This is reporting INDIAN claims. 39.62.128.108 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Replace it with some other neutral source or remove it. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

They were verified by the NY Times, so they can be put up here in Third Party Claims Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't it say that Indian officials said...? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't understand, IP and PunjabiEditor69. Give a fair share of read to the cited sources. After The claim of NYT "It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore." The claim is backed by experts: “A move like that is quite strident and would have concerned Pakistani forces, because in other contexts, taking out air defenses is a prelude to more serious action,” said Kim Heriot-Darragh, a strategic and defense analyst at the Australia India Institute. “You’d knock out defenses to open a corridor through which aircraft could fly and strike their actual target.”. Need to drop the stick. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, fine — I think we can include this. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The words you've quoted:

"It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore."

There's hyperlink if you care to see. Clicking on that will lead you to another article, in which the words that corroborate the claim in the original article say the following, verbatim:

"India said it had responded by striking Pakistan’s air defense systems and radars close to the city of Lahore — the kind of blow that often causes a military conflict to intensify, analysts said."

INDIA SAID, being the keywords at play. Hence these are very much, Indian claims that are merely being reported by the NYT.

Additionally, you've quoted:

“A move like that is quite strident and would have concerned Pakistani forces, because in other contexts, taking out air defenses is a prelude to more serious action,” said Kim Heriot-Darragh, a strategic and defense analyst at the Australia India Institute. “You’d knock out defenses to open a corridor through which aircraft could fly and strike their actual target.”

Heriot-Darragh, if you have any sense about context clues, is saying that a move like THAT, referring to the possiblity of air defence systems having been destroyed, is a prelude to other actions.

This quote in no way, shape, or form confirms any air defence being destroyed.

The horse is very much up and kicking, Rightmostdoor6. You just seem uninterested. 39.62.128.108 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the hyperlink to the different NYT story. But you first need to focus on the cited source (which supercedes and updates the former), which quotes two experts making specific remarks about the damaged military equipment in Pakistan—don't dismiss it as lacking context. Maybe the earlier story [48] lacked corroborated opinions, but the one cited here clearly provides that. The experts aren't just making scattershot remarks—they're evidently confident about the damage caused by the Indian strikes. If you have any other high-quality source that contradicts the NYT, feel free to share it. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we just use any other source to avoid any confusion? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven What is your opinion on this? Should we keep Many defense systems damaged or not? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I am unable to view the NTY, so can't comment on what it says, i will however, say that WE do not get to dismiss an RS< as long as we accept its an RS.So if the NYT says it, we can include it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia Library Pro Quest to access it. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I provide the article's text here? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Which is verified by the NYT report. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

True, so no changes should be made as its verified by New York Times. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@IP guy, you seem to have misunderstood our WP:OR policies. If NYT evaluated a claim to be reliable enough to state without attribution, there is no issue with us doing the same. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Remove (mischievous edit without consensus here) in the Christine Fair Analysis section

They just put up a Pakistani biased news source in reference called Express News which has changed Fairs statement according to thier narrative. Secondly Fair told in a interview with Karan Thappar in the Wire that, she is not an expert on Aerial fights and Aviation, so her relevence in analyzing aerial fights is not essential. She told this statement twice. (It can be looked upon in the video source stated in the above threads) In the thread above a consensus was reached that we will not Fair thought on Aviation, as she is non expert in it. We can only use her statements on legacy of this conflict topic, in which her expertise lies. So I propose a removal of Fair statement on the air forces as non expert opinions are unwarranted. Also the Pakistani source should be removed from quoting in Analysis section. There was a consensus to not use Pak, Ind sources there, but editors still do it without consulting in talk page. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kbwKCe2wd7o&list=PLzia1qLN9v2Abtxt-_mFc9_38ia0mdkfM&index=6&pp=iAQB0gcJCY0JAYcqIYzv (Wire reference) Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 @CapnJackSp

@DataCrusade1999

@Gotitbro

@Withmoralcare

Please look onto it Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll remove it but link the section where consensus was reached that fair won't be used in Aviation. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur with your analysis. Fair is not appropriate for such analysis, her controversial past makes her voice more obscure. Better to exclude her analysis. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Please do the needful Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User Ecrusized removing legitimate content without consensus

That's enough of that. This is not the place for this discussion, and Truthprevails999 has been indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Ecrusized removed the satellite imagery on the strikes on Pakistani terrorist camps given by the Indian armed forces in the press brief with before and after strike time stamped images from satellite and drones. He removed it without consensus in order to spread a one sided narrative. If Pakistan doesn't have satellite imagery, it doesn't mean Indias should be removed citing propoganda.

Secondly he also added a table citing target of missile strikes in Op. BAM with a thenews.com.pk site which is a biased pakistani source. Unlike the Indian strikes which had satellite imagery, the pakistani strikes didnt have any such proof, and they were profuted by Indian armed forces brief while giving time stamped images and calling out the Pakistani lie. Also the table is so irrelevant it has mentioned Gujarat as the place of strike, its a State for gods sake with 200,000 km square area, there isnt any exact location given by the pakistani side to where it hit them. So such content should be kept in Pakistani claims and not be kept in a standalone table citing pakistani news sources unless we get proofs from a neutral agency or satellite images confirmation.

So i propose on reverting the Indian Satellite images as given by the Indian Armed Forces.

And the Op. BAM table should be removed unless we get a neutral source proving that these sites have been hit via satellite imagery as it is with the Indias case on Op. Sindoor, we cant site a pakistani paper there called thenews.pk Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a Pakistani claim, so what’s wrong with including it? The OPT Sindoor table has also been added. Can you give reference for that table? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It is given by Press Information Bureau by Govt of India, and is also verified by NYT and Washington Times with satellite imageery. While on the other hand the Pakistani claims have no neutral agencies to back it up and so they choose thenews.pk there which should be removed.

Also why are the satellite imagery being removed without consensus. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Satellite imagery should not be removed without consensus. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It has already been removed by @Ecrusized without consensus in order to spin off a one sided narrative and propoganda Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you please WP:FOC and stop personalizing this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you give me NYT and Washington Times links in which they verified it with satellite imagery. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Include those references in the table for clarification. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Remove thenews.com.pk firstly, unless a third party claims verifies. Tables are not a place to put claims, they can be done after satellite imagery proves so, as it is with the Indian case Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Provide the New York Times and Washington Times reference links in which THEY verified that those targets were hit by India during Operation Sindoor. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

look at the articles cited in 3rd party claims in Pakistani side, you will get the NYT and WP imagery Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We can include both sides claims, they do not need verification, but we must also be clear, they are only claims. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven the table heading in Op BAM doesn't state it like a claim. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Also another table should be made on Indias Retailtory strikes on PAF Airbases if that's the case. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Still my question of removal of satellite imagery without consensus is un answered. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

revert it what else. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It was in fact answered in a thread above this, we should only include these if we make it clear these are only inDian claims. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Include in the existing table. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

no time frame of strikes were different, so a new table should be created Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It was the SAME Operation. How many tables will you create? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Those were maiden missile strikes, these are retaliatory missile strikes, so both are different as per the source Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just make one table and remove the word maiden. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 @CapnJackSp

@DataCrusade1999

@Gotitbro

@Withmoralcare

Please look onto it and revert the satellite imagery Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven any reason for you reverting the satellite imagery again. It's a Indian claim given by Armed foreces supported by satellite imagery and is even reported in NYT and Washington Post. I see no reason why it can be removed. Kindly re-add the satellite imagery as discussed by the consensus earlier last week here Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have said why above. Its a wp:npov violation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

but in that consensus an understanding was reached that it should be kept as part of Indian claims. So it was kept for more than a week, why it's sudden deletion now without re-consensus. On one hand you say both party claims can be put and on another hand you didn't follow it in this case citing wp:npov. This just doesn't make sense. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You should reinstate the old version, these images have been verified by NYT and The Washington Post. The section also saw the content addition of Pakistan's perspective [49]. Feel free to remove it as it's not verified by any third party sources unlike the former. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as claims, so rewrite it to not put India's claims in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Brought them on ANI [50]. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Good initiative @Rightmostdoor6 Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

even the user @SheriffIsInTown is doing the same, it can be verified from the source history. Kindly look onto that as well Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

OK so the excessive tagging looks a little bit like canvassing in this context so maybe knock that off. Remember that Wikipedia has no deadline and people will get to it when they get to it. Looking over the edit history it appears the objection is that the images are non-neutral as they contain claims that certain locations are "terrorist camps" that are disputed by reliable sources. As such these images may not be WP:NPOV compliant since they are making an assertion, effectively in wiki-voice, for which reliable sources disagree. This actually sounds like legitimate grounds for exclusion to me. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Alright. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, they're asking to fulfill the edit request because non XC editors can't perform it, I don't know what canvassing has to do with this. We can discuss the inclusion and exclusion of this particular table here. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

They tagged several editors they expect to be sympathetic and said "please revert" - that is precisely canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Still way more obligable and a correct way as in we discuss here with facts and reach on a concensus, where as some xC editors just make changes and push thier one sided propagandist point of view and violate WP:POV without reaching a concensus. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry what do you mean by "still way more obligable and a correct way?" That you believe these editors will feel obliged to agree with you is precisely the problem. It is not, in fact, the correct way to handle content disputes. Please don't waste people's time with nonsense and insults. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

the user @Ecrusized also added a pakistani local source in the Christine Fair section of the Analysis section, after a consensus was made weeks before to not use domestic sources of both countries citing biases. Guess what, its still there. How will you defend him now for violating WP:POV. Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not add such a source "@Truthprevails999:" Ecrusized (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You have not provided a diff so I don't know what edit you are talking about. I cannot adjudicate the policy compliance of an edit I have not seen.
2. This is off-topic for the discussion of the deletion of the satellite images.
3. This is not an appropriate venue for discussing behavioural issues.
4. This did not answer my question regarding what you meant with your prior comment. It is, as such, something of a non-sequitur. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   I regret getting myself involved in this article. This is the worst of Wikipedia I have seen in a long time. Constant POV pushing followed by unsubstantiated accusations, personal attacks and dozens of (incorrect) noticeboard pages being opened. Ecrusized (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Same. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have status-quo reverted [51] to recent warring over this issue. Please discuss here before making any changes to the long standing contents. Cheers, Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

[[wp::ani]], is where we discuss user conduct, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

More casualties ?

Are we missing something for more losses? NYT says: there was evidence that India had managed to hit facilities related to two prominent terrorist outfits. I propose the inclusion of "Terror facilities of two outfits were hit" in the infobox. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, as per mentioned in the NYT article, it should be added in third party claims Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, this must be added. Good point 2409:40C0:101F:C55F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Read the NY Times article, it seems we can add "Terror facilities of two outfits hit" DanBritton (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Bias

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

---

Why is this article supporting pakistani claims which lack proof and not support ing indian claims which are proven. No indian aircraft was lost . Pak govt is known to lie to the world 2405:201:4001:419C:C95F:6E8B:1B01:A2B3 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy. Content must be based on what reliable, third-party sources say, not what one side or another claims without corroboration. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Indian loss of 3 aircraft is attributed to independent sources, not the Pakistani government on infobox. Orientls (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That's why it's been included in "Per Pakistan". Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Discused in many threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is what reutar published, claiming Rafale down in the infobox of Third-party sources of Pakistan.

One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was high confidence that Pakistan had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets

Reutar claim of Rafale down is sourced from some anonymous US official who is having high confidence without any evidence.

On the other hand Third party source in the infobox for Indian side is backed by analysis with evidence like satellite imagery.

Yeah we are talikng about neutrality. Stravashosha (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2025 (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.

Express News?

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

---

In the analysis section, a Pakistani source, known as 'Express News', has been provided for the following portion:

"She acknowledged in her analysis that the Pakistan Air Force held an advantage over the Indian Air Force during the recent India-Pakistan aerial engagement. She further noted that although a ceasefire has been achieved, it should not be considered permanent or stable, as the Kashmir issue remains a volatile flashpoint that could lead to another conflict between the two countries."

Is this appropriate? Withmoralcare (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be attributed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the elucidation. Withmoralcare (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Any update on why this section is not removed yet and it is still citing an unreliable Express News source. @Slatersteven DanBritton (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

When did RSN say it was not a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Then can we open the floodgates for all Non-RSN'ed Indian Media reports on this conflict right?

Also while scrolling above I saw The News International Thread were editors agreed that her thoughts on Aerial Battles should not be reported as it's not her expertise, as mentioned by her itself in one of the sources. DanBritton (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We judge on a case by case basis, and read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

See above #The News International? above. Closing this repeat thread. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (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.

al jazeera

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

---

Al Jazeer is known for its hinduphobia and bias towards pakistan , still it is being used as a source. and also no aircraft has been lost 2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy. Content must be based on what reliable, third-party sources say, not what one side or another claims without corroboration. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2025 (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.

Rafale

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

---

no proof of rafale shot down. there is only one CNN report which is an opinion and not an analysis. 2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you please stop making new sections? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (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.

Malicious Edits by SheriffIsInTown

This guy shrewdly removed some key phrases of LeMonde under the disguise of creating a chronological order.

Previous : "The major military confrontation produced no winners, unlike the previous three wars won by India"

Present : "It said that the major military confrontation produced no winners."

Apart from that, I would also like to suggest the addition of some words which were a part of another LeMonde essay already referenced in the present page :

"Operation Sindoor, a 'high-intensity, open, and public military operation' marks a doctrinal innovation in India's response to terrorism".

Ps. I intentionally gave archived versions of the OG sources, so that non-subscribed editors could also see the paywalled website. Thank you. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)