Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

March 09 Official Statement by the Indian MEA Spokesperson on India Pakistan Situation

Statement by the Spokesperson on India Pakistan Situation March 09, 2019
Some interesting points on the downed F16 plane. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

But still zero evidence that an F-16 was downed or lost. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is showing Indian administrated kashmir

The term Indian administrated kashmir doesn't exists as Jammu and kashmir is an integral part of india. Whole world and even the U.N has accpeted it. So using of such word hurt the sentiments of Indian. Kundanmuku (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The term Indian administrated Kashmir along with Pakistani administrated Kashmir are accepted neutral terms for the two areas under de facto control by the two countries. We are not here to make either side happy. MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistani airspace closure extended yet again

Pakistani airspace closure has been extended yet again We do have a section that talks about it. But not sure how to appropriately cover this major news. Pakistan keeps extending the airspace closure on an almost "daily basis".--DBigXrayᗙ 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

It might be that the section in the article needs to be simplified rather than reporting each daily movement of the expected opening date. MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Paki drones shot down

Why doesn't this article mention the fact that three Pakistani drones have been shot down in Indian airspace, since the Indian airstrike:

• 26 February, Kutch district - [1]
• 4 March, outskirts of Bikaner - [2]
• 9 March, Sri Ganganagar district - [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.113.99 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Its too trivial, it only an unconfirmed Indian claim?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a "trivial", unconfirmed Pakistani claim about a submarine that is deemed notable enough to be included in the article. 117.198.113.99 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

And I would oppose inclusion of that (as I have said, more then once) we do not need to list every claim and counter claim). But I can see a difference between a manned submarine invading national waters (with all that implies) and a few drones.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I like how you assumed it was a "manned" submarine, let alone everything else that is wrong about that footage. Can we have someone else comment on these threads please? I think your stance is pretty clear here. 117.198.113.99 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that some of the 100 page watchers would comment if they disagreed with Slatersteven comments and conclusions. Under the spirit of WP:SILENCE they dont need to comment if they agree. Pretty sure they would come out of the woodwork if a bun fight started. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Because no one has said it was unmanned, and AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the one about the SU-30 shooting down a drone, as any sort of air to air engagement, even between a manned aircraft and a drone, is a rather rare occurrence.XavierGreen (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the addition by XavierGreen. It deserves a mention. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I already posted two sources when i added it to the article, unlike other instances, the Pakistani government has not refuted this claim it seems.XavierGreen (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

"Indian Air Force later presented wreckage of AIM-120; an air-to-air missile, capable to be launched only from F-16s."

For grammar and to remove its misleading nature, this sentence should be changed to (or something along the lines of):

"The Indian Air Force later presented wreckage of an AIM-120, an air-to-air missile. The F-16 is the only aircraft in the Pakistan military that uses AIM-120s." Jak525 (talk) 03:33, Sunday, March 10, 2019 (UTC) 03:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done DBigXrayᗙ 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Has it been proven by independent expert this is true?Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

See and List_of_active_Pakistan_Air_Force_aircraft#Current_aircraft

Whatever happens, the recovered piece of the AIM-120C-5 is strong evidence that Pakistani F-16s tangled with Indian jets for the first time in the air battle over Jammu and Kashmir.

--DBigXrayᗙ 08:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Strong evidence does not mean is. Nor does it mean it is a contemporary wreckage. Maybe reword it to say " strong evidence that Pakistani F-16".Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. added the wording as you suggested above. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The use of the term "strong" is POV. If it is used, it should be clearly attributed as to who believes this constitutes "strong" evidence.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Lone house" vs "building"

DBigXray reverted an edit of mine and in which he changed "resulting in damage to a lone house" to "resulting in damage to a building". But the source[4] says "The closest structure to the newly impacted craters is a lone house belonging to 60-year-old Nooran Shah, the sole casualty". The reuters article[5] doesn't appear to mention any buildings damaged. In fact, other sources refer to "mud houses" being damaged, but no evidence to damaged buildings being reported by local villagers is in the source.Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wreckage of PAF F16 called out as second IAF Plane

(This information is subjective and must not be considered.)

Hi User:Wiki.0hlic Please take a look at this pic in the Pakistani Newspaper Dawn Article. Pakistani media had been calling this pic as the wreckage of the Second IAF plane, while reports in India from IAF sources have confirmed that this is the F16 plane that was shot down by IAF planes.

• NDTV Wreckage Of Downed Pak F-16 Fighter Seen In PoK. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: As per my knowledge, Pakistan has never claimed that the wreckage of the second Indian aircraft fell in its territory. Neither has it said that it used F-16s in the air battle. Further, the Dawn article you link to captions the image as "wreckage of an Indian aircraft", and doesn't claim for it to be related to the second jet in any way. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Pak media showing fake image of mig-21. The picture they showing was 2016 crash of mig21 in kolkata india media proof it by plane number.what a laugh? Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Wiki.0hlic I hope you can now appreciate the clarification of the conflicting reports. It is clear that 2 planes came down. PAF says both were IAF jets. IAF says one was IAF Mig21 and the other was PAF F16. This has to be included accordingly into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:- There is considerable ambiguity regarding the second crashed jet. Wait for an independent source to confirm the claims of either India or Pak. Meanwhile, we can use the statements of both sides until then; which is how things currently are in the article. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki.0hlic if you are suggesting to wait for other sources, shouldn't we also remove PAF'S claim of 2 Indian jets that is in contradiction to IAF claims. Its a two way street. Either both claims need a mention or none. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: - I am suggesting to keep the article as is. Claims of both sides need to be mentioned, until proven wrong by independent sources. If you read the section pertaining to the jets being shot down, you can clearly see that both PoVs are mentioned - so its already a "two way street". - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

@DBigXray: - NDTV source is speculative. Please refrain from adding it to the article unless confirmed by neutral/independent sources. The same Northern Light infantrymen can be seen guarding the Mig-21 crash site, in the same terrain on this BBC source.

References

@DBigXray: In a recent press briefing by Indian military officers, they claimed that that Mig-21 Bison shot down an F-16 of PAF ([6]). They also presented the cover of AMRAAM missile as a proof of F-16 jets involved in the PAF's strike ([7] [8]).

@DBigXray:, please update the Indian claims by using the official sources listed by Sarvatra above. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am adding a video refrence of India Today where the anchor is insisting that part is of F16 whereas the technical analyst is telling him, no it not the F16 part as it's a MIG21. Rashid PicKro (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No, this will need better wording or sources. Please also refer Statement by the Spokesperson on India Pakistan Situation March 09, 2019--DBigXrayᗙ 15:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

---

This is a paragraph from the official statement of the Ministry of External Affairs India.

The statement by our Indian Air Force is in the public domain. Only one aircraft was lost by us. If, as Pakistan claims, they have a video recording of the downing of a second Indian aircraft, why have they not shown it to the international media even after more than one week? Questions should be asked to them as to where the fuselage of the aircraft is and what has happened to the pilots? As we have already said, there are eye-witness accounts and electronic evidence that Pakistan deployed F-16 aircraft and that one F-16 was shot down by Wing Commander Abhinandan. Evidence of the use of AMRAAM Missile, which can only be deployed on the F-16 with Pakistan, has also been shown to the media. Pakistan should explain why it continues to deny that its F-16 aircraft has been shot down? We have asked the United States to also examine whether the use of F16 against India is in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale.

--DBigXrayᗙ 08:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism: The article is showing content from Nudity

The top into paragraph and side table is correct content. Rest is from Nudity article. -Abhishikt (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

being Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2019_Balakot_Air_Strikes_Page_Defaced_:_Not_able_to_edit --DBigXrayᗙ 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen this mentioned on the talk page or anything so i thought i'd bring it up - someone has copied the entirety of the wikipedia page Nudity into the top of this article Nefaeryous (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC) edit: ah, someone else just did

Now fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

The article states that an Indian Su-30 shot down a Pakistani UAV. This is incorrect - India does not operate Su-30s, but the Su-30MKI, an advanced variant Sterling Saini (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done DBigXrayᗙ 05:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also note we are still waiting for a reliable source that it happened. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

PAF F16 Pilot Shahaz-Ud-Din

Was there a PAF F16 pilot named Shahaz-Ud-Din who was lynched in Nawshera?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158397550900031&id=520145030

https://www.firstpost.com/india/pilot-of-downed-pakistan-air-force-f-16-shahaz-ud-din-lynched-by-nowshera-mob-that-mistook-him-for-indian-airman-6180091.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/pak-f-16-pilot-was-lynched-his-721140.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its worth mentioning that PAF lost its pilot named Shahaz ud din in the standoff on 27 Feb. -Yoonadue (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Both downed planes were IAF jets, one MiG-21 Bison, one Su-30MKI

Please see sources as proof. The IAF has been unable to provide substantial proof of downing a PAF F-16. Pakistan has provided proof of both.

The IAF jet that fell in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Pakistani side) (see pictures of soldiers in uniforms with Pak Army flag and IAF roundel on the crashed jet):

https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan-shoots-down-two-indian-warplanes-and-captures-pilot-11649515

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47393454

https://www.dawn.com/news/1466347/2-indian-aircraft-violating-pakistani-airspace-shot-down-pilot-arrested

The IAF jet that fell in Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir (see the last picture with people standing close to another jet with IAF roundel):

http://www.radio.gov.pk/27-02-2019/indian-fighter-jet-crashes-in-occupied-kashmir-budgam-2-pilots-dead

The crash sites of two jets are completely different, but having IAF roundels, thus ensuring the facts. I hope this clears the confusion and can be included in the page. Wikipedia should not have any capacity for emotional subjective misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafargilani (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

There's much talk about application of Geneva Convention on release of captured Indian pilot Abhinanadan by Indians but the fact is that Geneva Convention can't be applied on him as there was no declared war between India Pakistan. Even if Indian views in this regard are taken in account, Pakistan's view of it can't be ignored. His status as PoW was not determined and he was seen as illegal intruder. Even his early release was not an obligation as the states are only obliged to release PoWs after the cessation of hostilities. So I request the editors here to mention the application of Geneva Convention on Indian pilot in 'Military events' section under the heading 'Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot' in neutral way, not one sidedly. (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/437668-geneva-convention-experts-differ-over-immunity-to-indian-pilot) Usama Ahmad 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saamikhan01 (talk • contribs)

Again we need independent sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit on India-Pakistan 2019 standoff

The Pakistani military claim of hitting down two Indian Air Force fighter jets was proved wrong by American experts who said such a large part of AMRAAM missile(it can be fired only by an F-16) debris can be obtained only when it has missed its target. This observation has been reported by Indian Express media house(website link is attached) and Indian Air Force too claims it lost only one MiG-21 in the aerial dogfight. Ash7max (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sources said American experts" - yeah, the first sentence indicates this is unreliable already. Plus Indian Express has basically no chance of being a neutral source. Juxlos (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep have to sat all a bit ORY.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

PAF F16 Pilot False Story

Whoever (Yoonadue) wrote the above must know that pilots wear flags and shields of PAF on either arm. It is nearly impossible to mistake a PAF pilot as an IAF pilot. Secondly, the language and accent of people from two countries is different. See credible articles below. Lastly, PAF did not use F-16 in retaliatory action against India, providing proof after proof. Whereas, IAF has been unable to provide any proof for downed jet.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/229966-pakistan-used-a-jf-17-in-dogfight-with-india-report

https://www.dawn.com/news/1467526/jf-17-not-f-16-used-in-air-combat-report

https://www.dawn.com/news/1467971/foreign-journalists-find-holes-in-indian-narrative-on-f-16-usage-balakot-strike

Further proof of no PAF F-16 shot down, no PAF pilot missing/lynched in Nawshehra. In fact, the fabricated story started circulating on social media (originating from India), and without any credible source to back it.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/03/05/why-claims-about-the-paf-pilots-lynching-dont-add-up

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/no-proof-india-shot-down-pakistan-f-16/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/02/falcon-vs-bison-verifying-a-mig-21-wreck/

In fact, there is a possibility that the IAF shot down its own MiG-17 helicopter (that went down the same day as other IAF jets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafargilani (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Ahluwalia the Indian minister of state (inferior than cabinet) for Electronics

DBigXray removed a statement by India's Minister of State.[9] If that statement contradicts another statement then both can be presented neutrally. But the statement of a minister is significant enough to merit inclusion.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reinstated. @DBigXray: There is no policy that states that statements cannot be included because it's "inferior". It's notable and well-sourced and thus, is suitable for inclusion. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

QEDK I have reverted your restoration of cherry picked quote added by Bless sins as a Good faith revert, This is blatant cherry picking of a quote to make a point. this is not an official statement and neither is he the defence minister, hundreds of Indian politicians have made thousands of statements on the airstrike, are you suggesting we go down that route ? --DBigXrayᗙ 04:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with DBX. We are not mentioning any statements/assertions which are attributed to unknown sources or are by people not intimately involved with the affair. If we are adding Ahluwalia; we need to add Amit Shah. Pending that we need to add about Sidhus' challenging the count. And, this will go on. It's the route to a giant mess. ∯WBG^converse 11:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So add all of it. How is removing a sourced statement from MoS justified by not including Amit Shah's statement? This is borderline WP:OWNERship to the extent that you're using your own logic to defy policy. Just so we're clear, we're not mentioning any statements, but notable ones. It is not your call to determine whose assertions are superior or inferior — the goal is to remain unbiased and that includes putting contradictory statements; "route to a giant mess" is not a valid argument. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, you need an alphabet soup of policies, right? Read WP:WEIGHT. He is a MoS of a dept. which is not any linked with defense affairs.

The main article is 2019 Balakot airstrike; where all these stuff shall or rather can be added. Every random politicians' claiming some or the other stuff about the strikes does not belong here. I did a rough count and was able to spot at-least 10 high profile politicians (CMs, national-party-chiefs et al) who has commented something or the other about the strike and has been covered by at least 3-4 reliable sources on each occasion, at first glances. Do we mention all these? Do we then proceed to Pakistan to find out about the statements of their politicians of the top tier (who have been un-doubtably covered by their media) and mention them? Further, do we proceed in the same manner about Pakistan's retaliatory strikes?

Also, I need not learn any lesson about ownership from you. ∯WBG^converse 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop taking things so personally, I was replying to both of you (and the OWNERship point was definitely for DBX). And I think it's ironic that you will cherry-pick the policy and not give any weightage to the ones on the very same page. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pray enlighten me about mine cherry-picking the sub-policy from the same page. If you do believe that the second paragraph in my above reply (or some variant of it) is the way to proceed; please journey but after a RFC. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WBG, you seem to hint at adding this to 2019 Balakot airstrike instead. But DBigXray removed the statement from that article[10] claiming consensus here to not even have the statement at that article.Bless sins (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement is significant, even if it comes from a junior minister, because it has been widely covered in reliable sources. There plenty of Indian newspapers which have covered it; Pakistani sources[11] (including a government source[12]) and international sources[13][14] have also covered it.Bless sins (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion about adding this, no consensus was reached so it should not have been added.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I recall there was a discussion and you responded to it, but there was no clear opposition to this so I added it.Bless sins (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WP:NEWSPAPER not everything that is covered in newspaper can have its own article or can be added into an existing article. I have explained why It has been removed. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no policy that bars wikipedia from including the statements of a junior minister. If it contradicts another statement, then both deserve mention. I pointed out above that the content in question is covered by Indian, Pakistani and International sources.Bless sins (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also the article currently contains the opinions of Praveen Swami who is not even a minister in India. Why should the article have statements by random journalists but not actual ministers?Bless sins (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian government officially maintained it was pre-emptive strike and never it was a revenge attack

Article wrongly says that Indian government told that it was a retaliatory strike. But, India told in official briefing that it was a preemptive strike for a possible terror strike. See the official Indian communique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A link would be nice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK I think we can say India has said this, but RS have said it was in revenge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Links to showcase it was not the revenge attack, but a pre-emptive strike to avoid a possible terrorist attack

1. The Balakot statement: Establishing a responsible India
2. The Balakot Strikes: Analysing India’s “Non-Military Preemptive Action”
3. BJP to its leaders: Keep restraint, project Balakot as pre-emptive strike, not revenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan has not allowed Media and local people to visit the Islamic seminary targeted by India

Pakistan has not allowed any media houses or the local people to visit the Islamic seminary, which India claims to have targeted using the roof piercing precision bombs.

• Reuters - No access to Pakistan religious school that India says it bombed
• 10 ambulances" used to ferry casualties from a madrasa run by Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Muhammad chief.
• Media Teams Prevented Access to Airstrike Site Multiple Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan had no support and Indian action of air strike inside Pakistan was supported with intelligent silence

India violated the Line of Control and also the International Border and bombed regions inside Pakistan. No major country came up with a statement condemning the attack and supported India by their silent approval of the same.

Pakistan had been isolated internationally and it had no support from any major countries such as P5(UNSC permanent members) or G8(Top 8 powerful economies) countries.

Ref:

How did the international community react to India's Air strikes on Balakot?

Advantage India, after Balakot air strike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

India re-affirmed twice that F-16 downed: This needs to be mentioned

Its worth mentioning that not only ANI reported that an F-16 was downed by IAF, but India re-affirmed twice officially that it downed an F-16.

Firstly, in Indian Army, Air Force & Navy's Joint Breifing dated 28th Feb 2019, IAF senior officer Mr Kapoor re-affirmed that the aircraft they downed was an F-16. (Source).

After that, in briefing of Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated 8th March 2019, Indian officer Raveesh Kumar re-affirmed that Wing Commander Abhinandan shot down an F-16. (Source).

These two events are worth mentioning in the article's sub-section titled "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot". -Yoonadue (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What do non involved sources say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclusive: Inside the aerial dogfight that took nuclear-armed Pakistan and India to brink of war, The Telegraph UK, 2 March 2019
• Slatersteven and Yoonadue Please see the independent source covering the downing of F16 in Detail. If anyone needs access to the entire article behind paywall, I can email.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"UPDATE: Following publication of this article, Pakistan has disputed the events described." So the source acknowledged the claim is disputed. This is the whole problem, no independent verification.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see what the Hong Kong based Asia Times" has to say on this: Can an old MiG-21 aircraft destroy a more modern F-16? Yes, in fact an Indian pilot flying a version of the MiG-21 called Bison allegedly shot down a Pakistani F-16 using a Russian R-73 Vympel air to air missile, known as a high off bore-sight air-to-air weapon. 

For the record, Pakistan continues to deny one of its F-16s was shot down. But denials notwithstanding, the evidence seems increasingly compelling against Pakistan’s denial.[15] ML ^talk 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Any idea where this evidence of a downed F-16 is, apart from rhetoric nobody has provided anything that proves an F-16 has come down somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Did you read the article? It reads: "Some news reports confirm that the F-16 shot down was a B Model, a two-seater, as two parachutes were observed after the plane was hit. The pilot and co-pilot bailed out over Pakistani territory, the reports said. The B-model, like the A, is the least capable and least modernized of the Pakistani F-16 fleet." Further down, the article reads, "While it seems the case that the Indian pilot was able to kill an older model F-16..."Thanks, ML ^talk 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I will add that the above sources seem pretty ambivalent about the claim, saying it might be true...but has been denied (and, in essence, we have no way of knowing).Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please also refer Point 6 in this statement quoted below, basically summarizes why Pak cannot accept the downing of its jet, because it will open another can of worms. But if US does have a proper mechanism in place to check the F16s (as claimed here), eventually it will be known if PAF lost one of its F-16.

The statement by our Indian Air Force is in the public domain. Only one aircraft was lost by us. If, as Pakistan claims, they have a video recording of the downing of a second Indian aircraft, why have they not shown it to the international media even after more than one week? Questions should be asked to them as to where the fuselage of the aircraft is and what has happened to the pilots? As we have already said, there are eye-witness accounts and electronic evidence that Pakistan deployed F-16 aircraft and that one F-16 was shot down by Wing Commander Abhinandan. Evidence of the use of AMRAAM Missile, which can only be deployed on the F-16 with Pakistan, has also been shown to the media. Pakistan should explain why it continues to deny that its F-16 aircraft has been shot down? We have asked the United States to also examine whether the use of F16 against India is in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale.

References

• --DBigXrayᗙ 16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it is still a contested claim do not reject contested claims because they make sense to us (that is OR). It does not matter what an Indian officer says, it is not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Slatersteven and MilborneOne, Pak denies that F16 were used at all, but India has already put evidence on record that nails that lie. See Pakistan F-16s launched two AMRAAMs, one missed target, other hit MiG-21 Quote: "American experts, who were shown the debris from the Indian side, have confirmed that remains in such quantity could only have come from a missile that had missed its target."--DBigXrayᗙ 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And when those US experts come forward and publicly support it fine, until then it is still only a claim made by an involved party. And use and loss are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that they found a missile fired from an F-16 doesnt mean it was attached to an F-16, as you quote "missed its target" clearly indicates a lone missile. The F-16 could have fired a missile then flown home for tea. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• MilborneOne agree with your assertion. My point was Pak has been denying that (1) PAF had used F16 and (2) its F16 was downed. The missile remains Debunks (1) and not (2). A conclusive proof for (2) is yet to be released. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a myriad of possibilities, a AMRAAM could have been fitted to a Pakistani JF-17. None of the sources provided state why the AMRAAM could only be launched from an F-16. AMRAAM's are routinely employed on a myriad of other aircraft other than F-16's, such as Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Panavia Tornado ADV, and Northrop F-5 fighters. Just because the AMRAAM's in Pakistan's inventory were sold with the intent that they be used on F-16's doesn't mean that Pakistan has fitted them to other aircraft in their inventory.XavierGreen (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

XavierGreen please provide reliable source for your assertion. US would never allow fitting its top notch missile on a Chinese jet. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not the United States "allowed" it, the missiles in question are under the control of the Pakistani government, they have physical possession of them and its entirely feasible that they would equip whatever jets they have on hand with them. The Egyptian and Romanian airforces have been alleged in the past to have fitted AIM-9 Sidewinders to MiG-21 airframes. Its entirely possible that the Pakistani aiforce could have fitten an AIM-120 to a JF-17 or even a J-7, without American approval.XavierGreen (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

it does matter, stop wasting our time if you cannot find a reliable source for your claim. And it is not as simple as screwing the missile to the plane. The integration with on board radar needs to happen and this won't be allowed to work without the manufacturers support. The amraam site lists the plane that can fire it. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have reliable sources for you assertions either, there is no reliable source available that states that a JF-17 can't be equipped with a AIM-120.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• as a matter of fact I have provided reliable source above that says there is no plane other than F16 in PAF that can fire AMRAAM. you seem to disagree but you have no reliable source --DBigXrayᗙ 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• All the sources I have seen, including those that believed that Pakistan used JF-17s, admitted that only F-16s can be fitted with AIM-120. See, e.g., [16], [17]. So, it is unreasonable for us to speculate otherwise.
• But all this discussion seems to have gone off on a tangent. The original question raised was why are we omitting the fact that the Indian government has claimed that an F-16 was downed. This is not some unofficial news report attributed to unnamed officials. I haven't yet seen an answer to that question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What I am emphasising over is that India has officially affirmed twice that it has downed an F-16, but the current version article doesn't even mention this official Indian claim. It simply says that "IAF sources" have claimed so and ANI has reported so, which is clear misrepresentation of facts. I am not asking to write conclusively that an F-16 was killed but Indian claim needs mention. Lets reach the consensus that this Indian official claim needs to be mentioned in the article's sub-section titled "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot".

We do "India also claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16".Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Admins,

Please do the necessary edits in this regard. -Yoonadue (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Yoonadue no need to drag admins into something that we can fix among ourselves. Please propose your version here in the form of change X to Y and we can discuss and add it--DBigXrayᗙ 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Who had upper hand at the end and Shift in security paradigm

At the end skirmishes, India had bombed Pakistan territory crossing International border & Line of Control and bombing Jaish-e-Mohammed training center inside Pakistani territory. Pakistan also accepted that India has bombed in Balakot in KP, Pakistan. Pakistan sent some bombs to Indian Kashmir, without crossing Line of Control (not International border). Pakistan officially does not consider Indian part of Kashmir to be part of India, as seen in Pakistan's maps.
Both India and Pakistan lost one fighter planes each, India losing Mig-21(which was supposed to retire this year or next), where as Pakistan losing F-16(the most modern fighter it has in it's inventory).
Future Indian PM will be forced to take action against Islamic militants, such as JeM, HuM, LeT inside Pakistan as this action by India has changed security paradigm forever.

Ref:

• Pakistan Hugely embrassed
• Which Balakot?
• First Violation of Pakistani Airspace Since 1971 War: 3 Reasons Why This Strike is Bigger and Bolder Than 2016
• National Security: The New in ‘New Normal’
• Pakistan’s ‘nuclear blackmail ended’: What security experts are saying about IAF’s Balakot airstrike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the RS support this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SPICE 2000 bombs do not destroy the buildings like in old Iraq war photos

Please add below content to the article.

Bombs used are smart and intelligent bombs, kill everyone inside a building but does not create any damage to the near by buildings. Used for urban and targeted warfare.

SPICE 2000 bombs just go inside the building using small opening and create shockwaves to kill everyone inside instantly, no major damage to the nearby buildings. Please add the details from the below references. Ref:

• SPICE-2000 - How it works?
• Three ways India confirmed that the hits on Balakot were successful - shared for the first time
• Everything You Need to Know About The SPICE-2000 Smart Bombs Used by The IAF in Balakot Strikes: Watch Video
• https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/spice-2000-here-is-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-super-precision-missile-system-used-in-the-iaf-strike-on-pakistans-terror-bases

Knowshare1 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How about an independent RS?Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is how those smart bombs work. This video is from the French Rafale team, which is independent. India has claimed that it has used same bomb. So, bombs hitting target are not based on human skill. Bombs find their target themselves using the chip inside them, by comparing the terrain and lat/long co-ordinates with the map which has been fed into it. Either it hits the target OR falls without exploding. So, bombs should have hit the target.

What is the meaning of RS? Knowshare1 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan has not allowed any news agency to the madrasa, which India claims it has hit in the airstrike. Why? We cannot independently verify without news agencies are allowed to go to the site, which is on the hill top.

See wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source -
Reuters and other media teams could not visit location India claimed to have bombed, after trying more than 3 times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

US forced Indian Pilot release, with Pakistan getting nothing in return

US put pressure on Pakistan to release Indian Pilot, which helped in de-escalation of tension. As India was ready to escalate to the next level.
Pakistan was not given any deal or Pakistan did not get anything for returning Indian Pilot.
Reference:

• Tensions with India have cooled off, US is to be thanked for it: Qureshi
• US played key role in release of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman
• India, Pakistan threatened to unleash missiles at each other: sources

[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again I am not sure the only RS here supports your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dawn is Pakistani news paper and Retuters is from US, what else you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing it, but I do not see where either of those say the Pakistanis released to pilot due to US pressure (well the dawn link does not appear to be uploading, so I cannot verify what it says). Could you provide the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are still naive to how geo-politics happens in the world. No one will publicly say, I had pressure from US. US will never say, I put pressure on Pakistan. They will say "We encouraged", etc. wordings. Please see the Economic times article, where Centom chief says, he talked to the Pakistan Army chief and “encouraging him” to release Indian pilot. There may be many other dealings such as IMF loan support OR Afghanistan peace support OR FATF support etc. Pakistan FM also gave statement that US-Pakistan relationship will reach new high in tackling FATF, Afghanistan peace process etc.

No, I just understand wp:or and wp:v. I take it from the above that no, these RS do not say the US pressured Pakistan.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This was the same PM's government, who publicly gave statement in twitter against US and thus isolating himself from world community, as most of the countries are US allies or friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference for consideration

To be considered for inclusion in the article:

• Pulwama terror attack was Pakistan's finest hour: Pakistani Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed - (16 March 2019, India Today)

I have also left this on the talk page of 2019 Pulwama attack but I think it can be considered here too since this statement was made afterwards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Right,it must include her. The statement is very important and must include here. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't report narratives of Pakistani politicians from Indian sources. AFAIR, Sayed's quote was picked out of context. As much as it was extraordinarily bad phrasing, (if you listen in entirety rather than the trimmed video) he was referring to Pakistan's response in the entire standoff. Completely unmerited unless foreign media picks it up. ∯WBG^converse 04:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric I only read the article linked above, and it appears to be only referring to Pulwama attack. Did Pakistan media not cover this statement? If they did, I guess we can possibly add it in the aftermath of Pulwama attack article. Definitely not on this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Its down to those who wish to include it to make better arguments. A d again I ask why this needs to be included, what does it tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan President statement mentions three Pakistani soldiers were killed on LoC not two as previously reported

Source: https://www.ptv.com.pk/ptvWorld/engNewsDetail/22013

More Indian attacks on Pakistan expected going forward

From the reference -

"India’s responses after Uri and Pulwama and going public with them has lowered the threshold for military reaction. In fact, whichever political configuration comes to power in the forthcoming elections, not responding militarily in the face of provocation may not be an option. Crisis trajectories are therefore tied to the political cost of inaction or action thereof." - Between India and Pakistan, Can 'Negative Peace' Serve as a Strategic Good?

"Pakistan needs a new strategy to deal with the new normal of India’s strategic calculus: conventionally attack at will and justify the act of aggression as a preemptive action."
-- Balakot—Pakistan’s strategic 9/11? – Jan Achakzai

Ref:

• Between India and Pakistan, Can 'Negative Peace' Serve as a Strategic Good?
• Crossing the Rubicon: IAF air strikes in Pakistan mark a paradigm shift in India’s strategic calculus
• The end of diffidence: India has moved from restrained to robust deterrence of terror. Can it sustain this shift?
• Balakot—Pakistan’s strategic 9/11? – Jan Achakzai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

US benefited immensely from India-Pakistan conflict

Pakistan was avoiding US and was becoming close to China at the cost of US reservations. This conflict made Pakistan to realise the importance of US relationship. When Imran Khan became PM, he had a twitter war with President Trump.
But, almost all the countries are friends of US. US supported India during the conflict
Though Indian fighter jets crossed International Border(IB) and LOC (pseudo border), and dropped bombs inside Pakistan, no country came up with an official statement condemning Indian action.
FATF warning of Blacklisting, IMF loan negotiation not making any headway and US support to India during the conflict, made Pakistan to realise the importance of US relationship.
India was in the wrong side of US and Pakistan was enjoying friendship of US from 1950s till 1990s, but Pakistan and it's public's uneasiness with US in last two decades, gave India an opening and now India finds itself with US and Pakistan in the other side. Pakistan is in deep friendship with China and no major country in the world want to show itself with a block which is considered anti-US and pro-China. This is also isolating Pakistan in the world diplomacy.
Now, Pakistan wants to enhance relationship with US, because of US role in the conflict resolution and threat of blacklisting by the FATF.

References

Please read wp:forum, stop using this talk page to discus general issues about the topic, and start to actually suggest edits please.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Moitraanak (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC) The list of references says that Ref 4 is either missing or empty. That is not so. The link shows that with the header: US advisor Bolton promises India support after Kashmir attack dated Sat, Feb 16 2019 is indeed online.

References

F-16 ejection

• Moitraanak (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC) A film taken of the twin ejection of the Pak F-16 is available. The two ejections are clearly audible. The language used is a mix of Hindi and Urdu and it is evident that the bystanders and the cameraman say "TWO" parachutes. They are both visible as is the aircraft.

References

A 1999 video is unlikely to support a claim from 2019 and clearly doesnt have any F-16s in sight. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Counterargument to the ASPI analysis

Col. Vinayak Bhat (RETD) of the Indian Army has given some counterarguments at to why the ASPI’s analysis is flawed, and based on illogical assumptions. https://theprint.in/defence/australian-researchers-pick-imaginary-holes-in-iaf-strikes-on-balakot/213970/amp/

This should be added as counter to the ASPI claims. DoomDriven (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@DoomDriven: Please suggest what Wikipedia guideline for WP:NPOV and WP:RS would, in a dispute involving India and Pakistan, consider a newspaper article written by a former defense analyst of the Indian Army, with no scholarly publications, as a reliable and neutral counter to a Special Report of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute lead authored by Marcus Hellyer, author of Catholic Physics: Jesuit Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany, University of Notradame Press, 2005 (Google Scholar Citation Index: 66), and editor of The Scientific Revolution: The Essential Readings. (Blackwell Essential Readings in History.) 320 pp. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.(Google Scholar Citation Index: 45) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly there would be neutrality issues here, but with attribution (and assuming that "just another" colonel is deemed notable enough to not fail undue) we could mention this "rebuttal".Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Pretty much what F&F sez. ∯WBG^converse 16:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The person in question has a credible military service record since 1982, and specialises in satellites imagery. You could at least mention his argument against ASIP. https://www.orfonline.org/contributors/vinayak-bhat/ I'm trying to link a PDF of his CV to NIAS Banglore, which includes his service record, but can't publish my reply. DoomDriven (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would consider anybody connected to the Indian military to not be neutral on the subject, pretty sure Australians are not involved. A lot of of stuff he says is in the "I know better they must be wrong" category without actually providing any evidence. Suggest it can be ignored and no need to mention the Colonel. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Help: Check Video

I have one video which is split into 2 parts. One shows an ac getting shot down; the other, taken from the same spot by the same cameraman shows another ac getting shot. Can somebody verify them please? I am unable to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28zkCei4kbI

• Moitraanak (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the commentator would not get a job as a photo interpreter, the videos could have been taken at any time and could be anything. So they dont prove anything apart from the commentator hasnt a clue what he is looking at. Reflections or artefacts are not parachutes for one. I wouldnt waste any more time looking at it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Why youtube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

India-POV pushing on this and daughter pages

I have quickly taken a look at this page and the daughter pages and can't help feeling that the narratives runs closer to what has been reported in the Indian media, or spun by the Indian government, than to what has been reported in the international media, let alone the Pakistani media, or spun by the Pakistani government. In keeping with the Indian spin, the air strike on Balakot is being reported as being announced by the Indians, when in fact the Pakistanis announced it first, the capture of the Indian pilot is finessed into oblivion by giving more significance to a Pakistani statement that two pilots had been captured, and its later revision. Very little is said about the Pakistani counter attack, the downing of the Indian pilot, or the return of the pilot. Here, in contrast, is the reporting in the New York Times (dates and times: US; ASIA-PACIFIC refers to hard news, in contrast to OPINION):

• February 25, 2019. ASIA PACIFIC. Indian Jets Strike in Pakistan in Revenge for Kashmir Attack. Pakistan’s military said aircraft from India had dropped bombs. But it was unclear what, if anything, was hit.
• Feb. 25. ASIA PACIFIC. After India’s Strike on Pakistan, Both Sides Leave Room for De-escalation. Amid the escalation of hostilities over an attack in Kashmir, the leadership of each country seemed to give itself a way out of pushing the conflict into war.
• Feb. 26. ASIA PACIFIC. Pakistani Military Says It Downed Two Indian Warplanes, Capturing Pilot. Hostilities grow with a second day of airstrikes and the first planes downed. Other countries call for the nuclear-armed rivals to show restraint.
• Feb. 27. OPINION. Hashtags for War Between India and Pakistan. Social media has been taken over by warmongers in the nuclear-armed neighbors. By Fatima Bhutto
• Feb. 27. ASIA PACIFIC. India-Pakistan Crisis: Why They Keep Fighting Over Kashmir. A simple guide to the roots of the conflict and what could happen next.
• Feb. 27. ASIA PACIFIC. Imran Khan Says Pakistan Will Release Indian Pilot, Seizing Publicity in Showdown. From the start, Pakistan has pushed its propaganda more effectively than India. But India says no gesture can be taken seriously until Pakistan cracks down on terrorism.
• Feb. 28. ASIA PACIFIC. Deadly Shelling Erupts in Kashmir Between India and Pakistan After Pilot Is Freed. Several civilians died in intense shelling as the region remained jittery even though tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors had subsided considerably.
• March 2. SUNDAY REVIEW. OPINION. The Young Suicide Bomber Who Brought India and Pakistan to the Brink of War. Both countries share responsibility for reducing Kashmir to a ruin and destroying generations of lives. By Basharat Peer
• March 2. OPINION. The India-Pakistan Conflict Was a Parade of Lies. The internet contributed to the culture of mendacity in a fight between nuclear neighbors. By Farhad Manjoo

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

NYT's coverage is not the best benchmark for neutrality:-( I will take a re-look, though for there have been abundant amount of Indian POV pushing. ∯WBG^converse 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this earlier. I went ahead and edited the lead, hopefully making it more readable and neutral. NY Times might or might not be neutral, but the position of the Delhi bureau chief is one of the prized postings of American journalism, attracting the best and the brightest, many would-be executive editors and Pulitzer prize winners, among which, off the top of my head, I can count A. M. Rosenthal (in the 50s), later executive editor; Joseph Lelyveld (EE and Pulitzer), Sydney Schanberg (Pulitzer), Serge Schmeman (Pulitzer), Barry Bearak (Pulitzer), Ellen Barry (Pulitzer) and the current, Jeffrey Gettleman (Pulitzer). Having had some dealing with the newspaper, I can say without hesitation their standards of vetting a story are extremely high, probably the most rigorous of any newspaper anywhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Please add Mi-17 V5 Chopper to the list of Indian casualty--reasoning = Friendly fire. Thanks. Khan79797979 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks.​ — Newslinger talk 09:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

[[18]], seen this already. But I am not sure it should be added, as it is not (as far as I can tell) confirmed.09:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Google Maps Research

@Kautilya3: "This madrassa has been set .up on very difficult terrain. There is a village called Attar Sheesha on the road from Mansehra to Balakot. At a distance of five kilometres from this village there is a dirt track on the left that leads up to the mountains."

The Pakistani military first reported the airstrikes. They posted pictures of uprooted fir trees and bomb craters. The Indians said they had hit a terrorist camps. We stated both without ourselves taking any sides. I'm afraid we can't do OR, use a 2004 book, of dubious value, of imprecise locations, bring out Google maps and then attempt to figure out how far Jaba village is from Attar Sheesha. It is actually 5.5 km, not 5). Besides, a recent Reuters report says, "A sign which had been up earlier in the week identifying the madrassa’s affiliation to Jaish-e Mohammad had been removed by Thursday and soldiers prevented reporters from gaining access. But it was possible to see the structure from the back. It appeared intact, like the trees surrounding it, with no sign of any damage of the kind seen near the bomb craters. Western diplomats in Islamabad also said they did not believe the Indian air force hit a militant camp. “There was no militant training camp there. It hasn’t been there for a few years – they moved it. It’s common knowledge amongst our intelligence,” said one of them." See here.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I see Reuters actually confirming the fact that this is a Jaish facility, but it has been claimed that, on the day of the bombing, it had ceased to be one. Anyway, my purpose is not so much to prove that this is in fact a Jaish militant camp, but just to remove the slant in your version that implied that random trees in Pakistan were bombed. Pakistan said what it said. But we are not obliged to repeat it in the lead. By the way, the NYT article that you cited didn't say that this was the Balakot in KPK. Rather, it mentioned a Balakot close to the "disputed border". Obviously, I am not recommending that this should be put into the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Rana & Mir is an RS as far as I am concerned. It has been cited in plenty of scholarly sources. But it is from 2004 and supposedly western diplomats in Pakistan think the site is defunct for several years (despite the fact that the sign was taken down only on "Thursday"). Here are some sources that have talked about it in the last decade:

sources in the last decade

Saeed, Luqman; Syed, Shabib Haider (2016). "Insights into Selected Features of Pakistan's Most Wanted Terrorists". Terrorism and Political Violence. 30 (1): 47–73. doi:10.1080/09546553.2016.1142442. ISSN 0954-6553. (p.&;72, footnote 26) Outfits such as JeM have training camps located in Balakot town, Mansehra. (Khaled Ahmed, Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shiite Violence and its Links to the Middle East, Oxford University Press, 2011. p.131.) Balakot is also the site of the battle between the Islamist Syed Ahmad Barelvi forces and the Sikhs, which took place in 1831. Syed Ahmad Barelvi died in the battle and has ever since influenced the coming generations of Jihadis in the region. Terror plots and conspiracy theories: the hunt for Rashid Rauf, The Independent, 27 September 2008. The Balakot camp, in the Manserah district, is run by Jaish-e-Mohammed, and has previous links with extremist UK Muslims, including Shahzad Tanweer, one of the 7/7 bombers. The reasons why Rauf, who is said to have been a conduit for al-Qa'ida in the "liquid bomb" plot, remains free to mix with a Jihadi group with continuing links to British Muslims is shrouded in the realpolitik of espionage and terrorism. Lovelace Jr. Esq, Douglas C. (2009), Terrorism Documents of International and Local Control, Oxford University Press, USA, pp. 468–469, ISBN 978-0-19-538307-2 On Pakistani soil alone, JEM operated at least four major military training camps located in Balakot, Muzzaffarabad, Hajeera, and Mansehra.... Allegedly, according to JEM internal records, as many as 7,000 "students" were enrolled at JEM's Balakot camp in the year 2000 alone. (This could be old information though.) EXCLUSIVE: How Jaish-e-Mohammad is funding terrorists in J&K, India Today, 18 January 2016. JeM has three very well established training centres in Balakot, Bhimber and Bhawalpur. These centres are run from local mosques that have other infrastructure in place. Rajesh Ahuna, Pak militants attacked Pathankot airbase, Jaish operative tells HT, Hindustan Times, 14 January 2016. The militant revealed that the JeM holds terror training camps in Balakot, a town in Mansehra district of Pakistan’s lawless Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province that is known to be major base of the outfit. “We don’t have training camp in Bahawalpur. We hold congregations there. We keep shifting our training camps. If there is a ban (to hold camps there) we organise our training camps somewhere else. Till two days back, our markaz (centre) was in Balakot. Now it may be elsewhere.” Indian intelligence agencies confirmed that the JeM has a regular camp in Balakot. Khalid didn’t assign a number to volume of training camps run by the JeM. “It depends on requirement. (We hold camps) sometimes in tribal areas and sometimes here (in Muazaffarabad). We have this system running from 2001 and it will continue.” Brijesh Singh, Masood’s Masterstroke: The Afzal Guru Squad, Pune Mirror, 16 January 2016. Recently, even after international pressure, two JeM camps, Batrasi and Syed Ahmed Shaheed in Mansehra and Balakot respectively, are once again operational, and as many as 7,000 'students' were enrolled at the Balakot camp in 2000 alone. Although some of the camps in Mansehra were briefly abandoned in 2004, according to a 'top manager' of the training camp in Mansehra, all the major militant organisations had begun renovating and reactivating facilities. The manager explained, "Our transport fleet is back, electricity has been restored, and the communications system is in place." According to the Pakistani researchers, the JeM facility in Balakot is "the largest military training centre of JeM, directly under the supervision of Masood Azhar and run by Qari Shah Mansur." Rakesh K. Singh, Eye to India, Pak reinvigorates JeM, The Pioneer, 19 June 2016. The Indian Intelligence establishment has issued an alert to various security agencies pointing out that JeM has opened new offices and training centres in the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Balakot town in Pakistan and is reviving its offices and network in the Kohat and Hazara regions.... The alert further said, “A new training facility has also been constructed by JeM at Balakot. The JeM is also planning to carry out terror strikes in India including suicide attacks in major cities. For this purpose, real time reconnaissance of the cities is being carried out by the sleeper cells of ISI, IM (Indian Mujahideen) and JeM terrorists.”... Incidentally, the audacious support by the Pakistani state agencies to its affiliate terror group comes months after a Joint Investigation Team visited India to probe the Pathankot airbase attack case in which the JeM was the key player right from the strategy to execution of the jehadi plan. FBI helped India crack FB chats of terrorists, The Times of India, 20 December 2016. According to the chargesheet, NIA's six witnesses include a man from Pakistan- occupied Kashmir (POK). Abdul Rahman Mogul, a resident of Polas village of PoK's Poonch district, and Mohammad Sadiq Maulviya from Ghalotiakalan in Sialkot have been used as witnesses to identify the conversations between terrorists and their handlers. The chargesheeet says that the two witnesses helped NIA in recognizing the voices of Masood Azhar and Rauf Asghar in relevant audio clips.Both Mogul and Maulviya knew the voices well as they used to frequently listen to their speeches during their own training at the Balakot training camp in Pakistan. Aditya Raj Kaul, Importance of Balakot & Why India Was Strategic In Targeting It, The Quint, 27 February 2019. JeM, sometime in mid-2018, organised an ‘Azmat-e-Quran’ conference at JeM's training centre ‘Markaz-o-Madrassa Taleem ul Quran’ also addressed as ‘Markaz Syed Ahmad Shaheed’, at Balakot Road of Jabba, in Mansehra district, KPK, Pakistan. During his address, he [Abdul Rauf] also took names of scores of JeM terrorists killed in J&K during 2017-18. It was here that Abdul Rauf announced to avenge the killing of Talha Rasheed, who was killed by security forces in an encounter in Pulwama in November 2017, on the scale which would be larger than JeM’s avenging the killing of Afzal Guru.... The students, in the usual 40-day long training sessions, were taught extensive handling of pistols, AK-47s, LMG, rocket launchers, UBGL and grenades, besides lessons on the Quran, Hadith and physical training. The stairs of this camp were painted with flags of US, UK and Israel to develop a certain rage and hatred in the students. Situated on the banks of the river Kunhar at a distance of nearly 18 miles from Mansehra, the location was an added advantage, as it was a forested belt away from civilian population.

So, as far as I can tell, the targeted camp is very much operational. But the JeM keeps its options open for moving things around depending on circumstances. I have seen another source, post-airstrikes, which said that the militants gathered at the Balakot camp after the Pulwama attack, in order to celebrate the attack itself as well as to escape potential Indian strikes in the Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So, even if it had been inactive for a while, it might have been reactivated just before the air strikes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but unless we have a source saying it was operation at the time of the attack we cannot infer it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Exactly my point. @Kautilya3: As for Reuters, they did not say that the Jaish facility was a training camp for adult men looking for salvation in heaven's well watered gardens, but a children's madrasa. (see here, and here. It is not even clear which madrasa they are talking about, 1 km away, or 150 meters away.) In the sentence about Balakot, the citation I used was to an article in the Washington Post, not the NY Times. "Close to" is typically not used with reference to a general region. We cannot really say "a town in India close to China." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am ok with the present text as it stands. I have also reinstated "just inside the border" phrase, which sounds strange to me, but apparently is in use. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the ambiguity, added more sources, and made the statements more neutral. As the events are recent, we need more descriptive prose, than interpretative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, "boundary" is better than "border" in this context. I am not sure why you want to say "residents of Balakot", but something like "residents of neighbouring village" would be more accurate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality vs readability

I'm reading this version for the first time, and my impression is that readability being seriously affected by the admirable attempts to maintain neutrality. Almost every potentially contentious line reflects both the perspectives of the Indian and Pakistani government, even in instances where their opinions aren't important. I am happy to make edits, but I thought it might be better to post here, so that I can resolve any potential conflicts before making changes.

Some examples:

• "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing; Pakistan's government condemned the attack. Nearly two weeks later, on 26 and 27 February, airstrikes were conducted by India and Pakistan against targets in each other's territory, or in regions under each other's control."'

That the Pakistani government condemned the attack is relevant of course, but not at this particular juncture. "Pakistan-based" does not automatically mean "Pakistan-sponsored", and there is no need to defend against that here. It would be far better if, for example, the line read: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". This would lead nicely into why the response was airstrikes in Pakistani territory, without implying that the accusation is correct.

• The first airstrike was conducted by India in the early morning hours of February 26 in the vicinity of the town of Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan,[24] just inside the province's boundary with Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[25]

This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line.

• Pakistan's military, the first to announce the airstrike on February 26 morning,[26] described the Indian planes as dropping their payload in an uninhabited wooded hilltop area near Balakot, purported photographs of which they posted on social media.[27]

The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote.

• The second airstrike, a retaliatory one,

Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none.

• Videos of the pilot, his face swollen from injuries allegedly sustained by beatings from a Pakistani crowd before capture, were posted on social media, but later removed after Indian protests.[32] The following day Pakistan announced its intention to return the pilot to India in what it claimed was a gesture of goodwill,[33] thereafter returning him on March 1.[34]

This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway.

I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to chronicle everyone's opinion, but just to present information in an encyclopaedic style for a layperson to understand better. India and Pakistan's opinions are important, of course, but should be evaluated separately. For instance, there are important implications for the language they used to justify their strikes. India used curious language: "non-military pre-emptive strikes" - when such a justification is not yet accepted for use of force in international law.

I would love to hear the opinions of other editors before I make any changes. If I don't receive any, of course, I will just proceed to improve the article as it appears best to me. I am of course assuming good faith all the way and ask my fellow editors to do the same. Thanks!

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply to Kohlrabi Pickle

>>>"The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". Not mentioning the Pakistani's government's reaction, and right away, makes WP complicit in the hackneyed Indian implication that the Pakistani government had a hand in it. The Pakistani government condemned it, long long before Indians promised any retaliation. The initial Indian reactions were muted. ("I strongly condemn this dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not go in vain,” Mr. Modi said on Twitter. Other officials were more emphatic that there would be a price to pay and that a response was in the making." See NY Times report. You can certainly change it to: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support. The Pakistani government condemned the attack and denied any involvement." >>>This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line. Of course it is noteworthy. Indians have not entered sovereign Pakistani territory (in contrast to the disputed region of Pakistani administered Kashmir) since 1971. They penetrated five miles into sovereign Pakistani territory. >>> The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote. Of course it is important; otherwise why would the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post be mentioning it. There is no guarantee that the Indians would have even announced it in the manner they did had the Pakistanis not announced it first. The photographs are important, for, to date, the Indians have produced no evidence, photographic or other, for the existence of their airstrike. Without the Pakistani evidence, or the later Western satellite evidence, largely confirming the Pakistani version, we'd have no evidence of any sort. >>>Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none. Despite the sabre rattling in the Indian media, India had been bending over backwards to say that theirs was not retaliatory (let alone revenge), only preemptive to head off the new threat they had information about. Pakistan was clear that theirs was retaliatory. The language in the lead is pretty much the language in the major Western English-language newspapers. >>> This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway. But this is not war, and India and Pakistan have not signed Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II which extend the conventions to international- and internal armed conflicts. If India had, it would have been under much grater scrutiny in Kashmir itself. Were this war, there is nothing in GC that says that a POW be returned in three days. India took over a year to return Pakistani POWs in 1971. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Kohlrabi Pickle:, Sorry I didn't realize you are a new reader; otherwise I would have been less pithy in my explanations. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolrabi Pickle's reply to Fowler&fowler's reply

>>>"The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". Not mentioning the Pakistani's government's reaction, and right away, makes WP complicit in the hackneyed Indian implication that the Pakistani government had a hand in it. The Pakistani government condemned it, long long before Indians promised any retaliation. The initial Indian reactions were muted. ("I strongly condemn this dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not go in vain,” Mr. Modi said on Twitter. Other officials were more emphatic that there would be a price to pay and that a response was in the making." See NY Times report. You can certainly change it to: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support. The Pakistani government condemned the attack and denied any involvement." I'm leaving aside my opinion on the merit of the Indian claim. This version is fine. Without the Indian government's perspective, it is unclear why they chose to respond with airstrikes. I hope you can see what I mean - without it, readability is impaired. >>>This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line. Of course it is noteworthy. Indians have not entered sovereign Pakistani territory (in contrast to the disputed region of Pakistani administered Kashmir) since 1971. They penetrated five miles into sovereign Pakistani territory. Yes, but if the point is just to establish that India crossed into Pakistani territory, surely this is established by the line that airstrikes were conducted in each other's territory. Or if the point is that it, for the first time, crossed into undisputed Pakistani territory (i.e. 5 miles into KPK, rather than AJK), then I think the line should be amended to reflect that. Perhaps "The first airstrike was conducted by India in the early morning hours of February 26 in the vicinity of the town of Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. This is approximately 5 miles inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the deepest that Indian armed forces have entered into undisputed Pakistani territory since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." This sounds important enough to feature in the lead section. I am hesitant to use the word "sovereign" because both India and Pakistan claim territorial sovereignty over the entirety of the Kashmir region, and to use your earlier words, this would make WP complicit in the Indian claim that AJK is not sovereign Pakistani territory. >>> The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote. Of course it is important; otherwise why would the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post be mentioning it. There is no guarantee that the Indians would have even announced it in the manner they did had the Pakistanis not announced it first. The photographs are important, for, to date, the Indians have produced no evidence, photographic or other, for the existence of their airstrike. Without the Pakistani evidence, or the later Western satellite evidence, largely confirming the Pakistani version, we'd have no evidence of any sort. I don't mean that it is completely unworthy of attention, but that it is not noteworthy enough to be in the lead section. It is based on conjecture. There is equally no evidence that the Indians would not have announced it in the manner they did. The photographs are a claim; they could have been taken anywhere. It is quite forgivable that India does not have photographs of enemy territory - their fighter jets were occupied with fighting and they don't have access to the area they claim to have bombed. The satellite evidence, which I understand are unverified and were leaked to the Western media, is the closest thing to objective evidence, and might have a place in the lead section. i.e. "India claimed that the airstrike was directed against a terrorist training camp, and caused the deaths of a large number of terrorists. However, satellite images leaked to Western mainstream media outlets appear to support Pakistan's claim that Indian bombs were dropped on an uninhabited area of Balakot." I would not quote either Indian or Pakistani mainstream media because plenty of effort has been expended elsewhere to show that both were reporting the news selectively. >>>Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none. Despite the sabre rattling in the Indian media, India had been bending over backwards to say that theirs was not retaliatory (let alone revenge), only preemptive to head off the new threat they had information about. Pakistan was clear that theirs was retaliatory. The language in the lead is pretty much the language in the major Western English-language newspapers. I think it is unwise to give so much credence to India's claims, considering that they had been threatening a response to the Pulwama attacks for two weeks leading up to the airstrikes. We know that in international diplomacy, countries posture for various strategic and legal reasons. This is to say that the airstrikes may have in reality been retaliatory, but that it was decided that the official position should be different for strategic reasons. This is important of course, but there is a great deal of complexity to their choice of language. I think it is better to phrase it as the way in which these countries have chosen to justify their strikes, rather than to declare their justifications factual. I suggest that we have a line reading "India has justified its airstrikes as a pre-emptive, non-military strike against JeM terrorists, and Pakistan has justified their airstrikes as retaliation to India's airstrikes, and self-defensive." The complexities of the language they used can be discussed elsewhere. >>> This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway. But this is not war, and India and Pakistan have not signed Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II which extend the conventions to international- and internal armed conflicts. If India had, it would have been under much grater scrutiny in Kashmir itself. Were this war, there is nothing in GC that says that a POW be returned in three days. India took over a year to return Pakistani POWs in 1971 I'm a little lost. This is international armed conflict, and surely the Geneva Conventions apply to that? Art 2 of GC III states that "the present Convention shall apply to ... any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." Surely this means that the capture of Varthaman is covered. Even if not, the fact that 174 states have ratified the Additional Protocols is strong evidence that they have crystallised into rules of customary international law, which are binding regardless unless there has been conscientious objection by either country. And India's delayed return of Pakistani POWs in 1971 cannot be used as justification to say that "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" means that 1 year is a legally acceptable timeframe. It would only be useful if you want to contrast the two, i.e. Pakistan returned Varthaman within 3 days, whereas Indian forces returned Pakistani POWs 1 year after XYZ in 1971. But even this, as I hope you agree, does not merit being placed in the lead section. The point of all this is that I found it difficult to get through the lead section when I read it, and an unreadable or difficult-to-read article is unproductive for anyone involved. Best regards, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: No worries, and thank you for your comments. Happy to engage as long as it's reasoned, detached and will improve the article :) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Walls of text are never a good idea, a few points, Mansehra District is not "DEEP IN Kashmir".Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, and noted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Will avoid, thanks. These are just examples, and I'm only suggesting minor reworking. If the general sentiment is that I'm off my rocker, then I'll desist. Also, I suppose "deep" is relative (I assume you meant "Pakistan" and not "Kashmir"), but the idea is that if you have to cross an entire state to get to Mansehra, it qualifies. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the size of the state. At its closest it is only about 65 miles from India.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

KP: No worries, not off your rocker at all. I have to run now. I'll answer in more detail in the evening, but a few points: Azad Kashmir is not sovereign Pakistani territory, only nominally self-governing, administered by Pakistan, in contrast to J&K, which India considers a state (though not recognized so by the UN or the major powers, with the exception of Russia). The satellite images were not leaked. Outfits such as Planet Labs in the US have their own satellites with hi-res cameras. See the Australian institute's assessment of a few days ago. Not sure if original GCs apply to undeclared wars; its a gray area from what I know. But since India and Pakistan did not sign the protocols, they will hardly consider the protocols-in-disguise to be binding. What happened on Feb 26 is a story for which there is almost no real proof. It is important not to represent it to be unequivocally about real events. That is the India-POV I was concerned about, and still am. There is no evidence, for example, that Mirage 2000s were used. No pictures of pilots taking off, or returning, let alone in flight over Pakistan. The 2019 Balakot airstrike article makes that cardinal error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for your comments, thanks. Just a couple of quick responses, so you can address these in your reply. Why does "nominally self-governing" mean that it is not sovereign Pakistani territory? I take your point on the hi-res images. I am happy to search for academic commentary on the GCs and India-Pakistan. Don't have any off the top of my head but I read some, all of which state unequivocally that Pakistan breached int'l law by letting Varthaman be videoed. Re the non-signature: it does not matter whether they consider it binding. Customary international law is binding on all states whether or not they accept it unless they mount conscientious objection, i.e. they vocally and consistently reject the purported rule. I take your point on India-POV, and will guard against it, though I would caution against what seems to be a very high expectation of evidence. I can't quite see how photographs of pilots taking off or returning would have helped; surely these are evidence of the planes taking flight and not of an airstrike mission, but who are we expecting to have taken photographs inside Pakistan? I imagine that the fighter jets were trying hard not to be photographed. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(i) In Pakistani governance, Azad Kashmir is not sovereign in the way Khyber Pakhtunkwa province is. It has some connection with an eventual plebiscite ... some conditions were perhaps drafted so in early UNSC resolutiions for all of Kashmir (which India may have violated by making J&K a state). (ii) I meant photographic evidence, not pictures of the planes. Eg. camera footage of the dashboard showing some unmistakable identification of the Mirage, showing GPS, altimeter, speedometer, date, time, starting in Indian territory and turning around near Balakot and returning. Not that hard. (iii) Did Western sources too carry the GC bit? The Indian government and media did of course, frenetically boning up en mass. What about internal conflicts? Neither India nor Pakistan care about GCs there. If GCs 1949 subsume the later protocols,

especially Protocol II (which India and Pakistan did not sign) then both are in violation big time. see UN report on Human Rights 2018.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have some commitments coming up so I probably will not have time to make any changes, as I expected I would. This discussion is moving towards disagreement on niche points. If you believe that everything in there is essential, then that's fine. Thanks for engaging. Just a general note that the lead section makes for difficult reading. Best regards. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: I have rewritten parts of the lead, taking some of your input into account. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)