repetitive discussion initiated by IP sock of NadirAli Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 71 discussions to Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike/Archive 1. (BOT) Tag: Replaced |
||
(356 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} |
{{talk header}} |
||
{{ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ipa}} |
||
{{ITN talk|27 February|2019|oldid=885265842}} |
{{ITN talk|27 February|2019|oldid=885265842}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
{{WikiProject India|importance=low|history=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|South-Asian=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=mid|History=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{annual readership}} |
{{annual readership}} |
||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
| age=2160 |
|||
{{WikiProject India|importance=low|class=C}} |
|||
| archiveprefix=Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike/Archive |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|South-Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} |
|||
| numberstart=1 |
|||
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=low|class=C}} |
|||
| maxarchsize=75000 |
|||
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minkeepthreads=2 |
|||
| minarchthreads=2 |
|||
| format= %%i |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
== Infobox "belligerents" doesn't make any sense == |
|||
== Title == |
|||
{{ping|Orientls}}, The original article title 2019 Indian Line of Control strike was based on [[2016 Indian Line of Control strike]]. The changed title ''2019 Indian Air Force strikes in Pakistan'' is not OK because the place in which strike was carried out is claimed by India as it own so '''in Pakistan''' is not neutral.-[[User:Nizil Shah|Nizil]] ([[User talk:Nizil Shah|talk]]) 05:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{admin-note}} given the repeated renaming of the page, I have move-protected it for a month. Involved editors are urged to at least discuss the page title issue amongst themselves to see if easy consensus is reachable (or, use [[WP:RM]] if there are significant disagreements) before unilaterally renaming the page. Feel free to ping me or any other admin if you reach an agreement and need a change to be implemented. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 06:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Nizil Shah|Nizil]] I think the current title "[[2019 Balakot airstrike]]" selected by [[User:Jim7049]] makes more sense as the exact location of the airstrike. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, agree. It makes more sense than the previous title.-[[User:Nizil Shah|Nizil]] ([[User talk:Nizil Shah|talk]]) 08:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*But Indian media is claiming multiple places of strike. How could it be single village name given? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/103.240.137.10|103.240.137.10]] ([[User talk:103.240.137.10#top|talk]]) 08:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:: Chakote (3:58AM), Muzafarabad (3:48AM), and Balakot (3:45AM) were purportedly attacked, according to Indian media. Pakistan Army spokeswoman Ghafoor said the reports were fake, and "not a brick was broken", and invited (authorize) Indian civilian or military to inspect the locations bombed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/126.243.120.126|126.243.120.126]] ([[User talk:126.243.120.126#top|talk]]) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*Balakot is one of 3 claimed strike locations, and not OK as a suitable title for the entire event. ([[Special:Contributions/43.242.116.30|43.242.116.30]] ([[User talk:43.242.116.30|talk]]) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)) |
|||
== Drone shot in Gujarat == |
|||
twitter Pics [https://twitter.com/shatrujeet009/status/1100276754676015104 here]. Does anyone know if there was any official pic released by [[Press Information Bureau]] ? --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 08:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
This is possibly unrelated to the early morning incident the article is covering. No western media have reported on the [[Israeli Nuclear-capable drone|contraband]] purportedly used. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/126.243.120.126|126.243.120.126]] ([[User talk:126.243.120.126#top|talk]]) 15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
On 26 February 2019, twelve Mirage 2000 jets of the Indian Air Force took off from '''MAHARAJPPURA airbase GWALIOR''' crossed the Line of Control and stuck an alleged Jaish-e-Mohammed operated terrorist camp at Balakot. Indian foreign secretary termed the airstrike as "non-military, preemptive airstrikes".[2]There are 10 fighter are for bombing and 2 for taking photos. [[User:Chillychikoo|Chillychikoo]] ([[User talk:Chillychikoo|talk]]) 10:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== POV == |
|||
It has not been established that JeM camp was attacked. India claims so but Pakistan denies. So on what basis is that included as a fact in this page? This page has to be tagged for POV as most sources used is Indian media. I can hardly find any Pakistani media reports. [[User:Libin Scaria|Libin Scaria]] ([[User talk:Libin Scaria|talk]]) 10:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: And inclusion of Pakistani claims by me have been removed by a user claiming it to be non-neutral. Indian claim that 200-300 militants were killed which is an outright lie is included and the user finds it neutral. Pakistan claims that Indian jets had to return after Pakistani Air Force response. This the user finds unacceptable. Is it fair to include claims by one side alone? This article definitely is written from an Indian perspective. [[User:Libin Scaria|Libin Scaria]] ([[User talk:Libin Scaria|talk]]) 10:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: The story is still developing and claims by both sides have to be taken into account for now. We can slowly dimiss the lie and propaganda without proper sources. I still do think the 350 militants killed should be changed to alleged by the media(since no official claim has been on casualities has been made yet).rationalwikiuser 20:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: I would like to disagree. All statements in the article have been sourced to news articles. This is not a claim from any user. [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 11:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: The article is written in the manner that Indian claim is a fact while Pakistani claim is just a claim. You cannot use multitude of Indian sources and state that the sources are alright. Also the lead earlier started with the sentence "Indian jets attacked JeM base camp attack in Balakot". This is an Indian claim only. According to Pakistan, there was no attack and the payload was dropped when Indian jets were fleeing back. Both these details should be included in the article without trying to establish anything. I have modified the lead but the rest of the article includes mostly claims by India.[[User:Libin Scaria|Libin Scaria]] ([[User talk:Libin Scaria|talk]]) 11:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: [[WP:NPOV]] did not work, now the other user is bringing up [[WP:COPYVIO]] to remove content undesirable for him/her. Just sad that such experienced users are not able to accept facts as facts and is trying to push their POV to the article. [[User:Libin Scaria|Libin Scaria]] ([[User talk:Libin Scaria|talk]]) 12:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Media and spokespersons both in India and in Pakistan are being described as "jumping monkeys", in both Urdu and Hindi. That is the only common aspect to the media resources across the border, and across the LoC. If Pakistan sources are insufficiently cited (very well may be the case here), that does lead to POV problems, but several Civilian and Military figures have held press-conferences, so a balanced and neutral wikipedian may find complimentary sources. Try harder[[Special:Contributions/126.243.120.126|126.243.120.126]] ([[User talk:126.243.120.126|talk]]) 16:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
Here is a look at seven things India used to destroy terror camps across LoC |
|||
*AIR ASSET 1: 12 Indian Air Force Mirage-2000 fighter jets - Same jet that hit Pak during Kargil |
|||
*AIR ASSET 2: 1,000-kg laser-guided bombs - MBDA BGL 1000 laser-guided bomb |
|||
*AIR ASSET 3: The IAI Heron - Machatz-1 - medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle |
|||
*AIR ASSET 4: Embraer 145 Netra - Airborne early warning and control developed by DRDO |
|||
*AIR ASSET 5: IL-78 REFUELLER AIRCRAFT - Took off from Agra for midair refuelling assistance |
|||
*AIR ASSET 6: Su 30 MKI - Took off from Sirsa airbase to tackle any eventuality |
|||
*AIR ASSET 7: Pechora missiles - Missiles were on standby near the line of control and international border to counter eventuality [[User:Abhishekarya1|Abhishekarya1]] ([[User talk:Abhishekarya1|talk]]) 13:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> it's not clear what changes you want to be made, and you have not provided any [[WP:RS|sources]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Perhaps the contributor wants to list "Air Assets" of the Government of India used agressively in the disputed alleged Violation Of Pakistani Airspace (Line of Control is not official border, but it could be seen as violation of De Facto Pakistani Airspace). If sources are available (although access to such publication may be limited), there should not be a problem including the list, although if situation escalates such lists may become exhaustive. There are sources[[Special:Contributions/126.243.120.126|126.243.120.126]] ([[User talk:126.243.120.126|talk]]) 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Coordinate error == |
|||
{{geodata-check}} |
|||
The following coordinate fixes are needed for |
|||
34.538818,73.436125 |
|||
—[[Special:Contributions/103.255.4.4|103.255.4.4]] ([[User talk:103.255.4.4|talk]]) 14:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you provide a source for these coordinates? This point seems to be in a forest near the border, not all that near the town of Balakot. ([https://www.google.ca/maps/place/34%C2%B032'19.7%22N+73%C2%B026'10.1%22E/@34.5412101,73.421943,15.7z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.538818!4d73.436125]) [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Photographs of the alleged target were broadcast on both Indian and Pakistani news, seemingly in a forested area, no campground discernable. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/126.243.120.126|126.243.120.126]] ([[User talk:126.243.120.126#top|talk]]) 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::[[WP:OR]] --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 18:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Balakot location== |
|||
Could someone correct the location of the attack. Pakistan defense minister and other officials claim that the strike took place 4 to 5km in Pakistan near loc. The Balakot which is mentioned by Pakistan is the one which is in Azad Kashmir. Here are Pakistani officials claims: |
|||
* https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497 Here they mentions that India struck Balakot village in Azad Kashmir. They never managed to reach Balakot town in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as per Pakistani officials claims. |
|||
Secondly, Indian officals also only mention that they hit Balakot. They never mentioned which one they hit. Here is Indian officials claims: |
|||
* https://thewire.in/security/iaf-airstrikes-in-pakistan-what-we-know-what-we-dont-know |
|||
The confusion should be cleared since both areas are different. Also from reading different news on the subject, I have seen that the 'Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa' claim is only mentioned by newspapers based on their own analysis. Neither Pakistani nor Indian officials talk about Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 18:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Where exactly is this second Balakot? I've failed to locate it on Google Maps and it does not have a Wiki article. [[User:Jim7049|Jim7049]] ([[User talk:Jim7049|talk]]) 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jim7049|Jim7049]] i don't know why it does not have have a wiki page. But there is a area in Pakistan part of Kashmir which is called Balakot. |
|||
In this source they talk about Balakot which is in Azad Kashmir near Line of Control: https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497 |
|||
From the source: |
|||
"The second Balakot where the Indian Air Force struck is a small village located around 4 to 5km from the Line of Control (LoC) in the Pakistan side of Kashmir. This area is mostly under the control of Pakistan army as the civilian population has already been moved out of the area due to the fear of border clashes, a highly placed official told Gulf News." |
|||
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/ from the source: "According to the reports, the Balakot in question is one in Azad Jammu Kashmir. Indian jets could only come inside Pakistani airspace for 3-4 miles." |
|||
Hence the confusion should be addressed. |
|||
Moreover, mentions of Balakot near LoC on Pakistan side of Kashmir can be found even during when ceasefire violations took place between Pakistan and India. Here is report from Pakistani media from 2018 where they talk about Indian forces shelling in Balakot sector of Azad Kashmir. https://www.dawn.com/news/1396035 |
|||
From the news: Indian troops started heavy mortar shelling at about 7am in the morning, targeting civilian populations in almost all villages along the Line of Control (LoC), said Nakyal Assistant Commissioner Waleed Anwar. According to the assistant commissioner the shelling finally ceased at noon....He added that at least three people were reported injured in "Balakot". |
|||
[[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Can any one fix Typo in 2019_Balakot_airstrike#Background section == |
|||
In section the section [[2019_Balakot_airstrike#Background]] the bold word should be 11 instead of 1l (the second character is actually L in lowercase ) |
|||
"Detainee has admitted to volunteering to fight Jihad against the US and its allies, remaining after the events of September '''1lth''' to continue to fight, and receiving training from the JEM. Detainee received training in Balakot, PK, a location known to house a training camp that offers both basic and advanced terrorist training on explosives and artillery. Detainee is a probable member of the JEM and as such, if released would likely gravitate back to that Islamic extremist group. The JEM espouses Jihad against the US and is directly supported by Al-Qaida." - Joint Task Force Guantanamo, 31 January 2004" |
|||
[[User:Jasonx5|Jasonx5]] ([[User talk:Jasonx5|talk]]) 18:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}. No comment on whether pulling that quote from WikiLeaks is appropriate or reliable. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
In the end of first paragraph, we have line "Pakistan claimed that no casualties or damage has been inflicted.[8][9]" |
|||
After this line, we should also add: |
|||
"Indian media reported that there are about 200 to 300 militants were killed during this operation.[18]" |
|||
Otherwise, you are showing partial information in the first paragraph (that is read by majority of readers). [[Special:Contributions/73.93.155.64|73.93.155.64]] ([[User talk:73.93.155.64|talk]]) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Pakistan is now reporting civilian casualties due to subsequent shelling.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 20:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Hi,<br> |
|||
The article is totally neutral please refer the bold words bellow, I hope you fill get it. |
|||
<br> |
|||
'''According to Indian media''', the jets struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed-operated militant camp at Balakot and about 350 militants were killed during the operation.[6][7] '''According to Pakistan,''' the Indian military aircraft violated their airspace near Muzaffarabad, Pakistan scrambled its jets in response, forcing the Indian jets back, dropping its payload while returning. Pakistan claimed that no casualties or damage has been inflicted. |
|||
[[User:Jasonx5|Jasonx5]] ([[User talk:Jasonx5|talk]]) 21:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: {{Already done}} Closing. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 21:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Editors please add a section with on the fake video which is circulated on social media which pretends to be original visuals of airstrikes == |
|||
Hi over there,<br> |
|||
Can anyone please add that a fake video was circulated over the social media which claimed to be the visuals of the air strikes but in reality they are are screen-clips from a military simulation video game called '''ARMA 2''' in the operation arrowhead in which US army helicopter Apache engages Taliban in Takistan mountains. |
|||
URL of the original video on YouTube posted about '''3 years''' '''before''' the air-strikes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7CnMEhF54o |
|||
Reliable Sources :- |
|||
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/fake-alert-no-this-is-not-the-video-of-indian-air-force-strike-in-balakot/articleshow/68166991.cms |
|||
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/feb/26/fact-check-fake-iaf-airstrike-video-goes-viral-1944010.html |
|||
http://www.newindianexpress.com/videos/videos-nation/2019/feb/26/fake-news-scene-from-the-video-game-arma-2-circulates-as-footage-of-iaf-air-strike-in-balakot-106426.html |
|||
https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/fake-news-iaf-air-strikes-across-loc |
|||
https://www.bhaskar.com/no-fake-news/news/two-fake-videos-viral-on-social-media-after-indias-air-strike-on-pakistan-01493398.html |
|||
https://scroll.in/article/914675/video-game-clips-old-footage-go-viral-claiming-to-show-indian-air-force-attack-on-jaish-camp |
|||
https://www.latestly.com/social-viral/fact-check/fact-check-these-videos-going-viral-as-iaf-air-strike-on-jem-terror-camps-across-loc-in-balakot-are-fake-665271.html |
|||
https://www.jagran.com/politics/national-pakistan-air-attack-attack-fake-video-viral-18992139.html |
|||
'''This will help to reduce spread of this fake video, which has infact gained 10s of millions of views across Facebook and Whatsapp''' |
|||
[[User:Jasonx5|Jasonx5]] ([[User talk:Jasonx5|talk]]) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Exactly what we should not do. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 21:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==New York Times report== |
|||
Can someone add this information from New York times. I believe it is important to the article: |
|||
"It was the first time that Indian aircraft had crossed the Kashmir Line of Control to strike in decades. But it was unclear what, if anything, the attack jets hit on the Pakistani side, raising the possibility that India was making a calculated bet to assuage public anger but minimize the risk of a major Pakistani military response." |
|||
"Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country. |
|||
Analysts and diplomats in New Delhi said the targets of the Indian airstrikes were unclear, as any terrorist groups operating along the border would have cleared out in recent days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India vowed retaliation over the Kashmir attack." |
|||
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jets.html?module=inline |
|||
Also could someone look into the issue of Balakot location problem? Balakot mentioned by Pakistan is the one which is near LoC. Meanwhile Indian security officials have only mentioned Balakot. They never mentioned which Balakot it took place. So the Balakot location should be corrected and the page specifiy which Balakot the strike took place. Source: |
|||
* https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497 |
|||
* https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/ |
|||
Here Indian officials talk about Balakot but they never specify which Balakot did the strike took place. https://thewire.in/security/iaf-airstrikes-in-pakistan-what-we-know-what-we-dont-know |
|||
[[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 00:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:You are quoting old reports to mislead. Pak DG ISPR quoted Balakot in Muzaffarabad sector, there is only one [[Balakot]] In Muzaffarabad Sector, the one in KP. The Balakot in KP has the largest terrorist camp of JeM. enough reports have been published, that clarifies which Balakot. there is no confusion now. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 04:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:DBigXray|DBigXray]] which one of the above report is old? Even in the most recent interview DG ISPR claimed that Indian Airforce only managed to come 3 to 4km inside Pakistan. Here is the most recent tweet made by DG ISPR: https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100251560985145346?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet |
|||
The Balakot which is in KPK is at least 80 km from LOC. I am not misleading anyone. None of the officals from both sides ever mentioned that it was Balakot of KPK. It was only speculation made by some media but later DG ISPR clarified it. Hence the information should be updated. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 06:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:''{{gi|None of the officals from both sides ever mentioned that it was Balakot of KPK}}'' yes but they mentioned Balakot. there was confusion in the intitial reports. but it was clear in the later reports. see BBC article |
|||
:FYI Balakot is mentioned by the official spokesperson of the ISI, the DG ISPR. |
|||
*Link to DG ISPR tweet -> https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 |
|||
*Link to web archive of the DG ISPR tweet -> https://web.archive.org/web/20190226043211/https:/twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 |
|||
*Link to Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet. https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr |
|||
*Link to web archive of Dawn news article covering the DG ISPR tweet https://web.archive.org/web/20190226073835/https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr |
|||
:hope it helps.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:DBigXray|DBigXray]] in your previous post you were telling me about using old reports to mislead people. |
|||
* The tweet you cited from DG ISPR including all the references, all are from early period. See the time itself. |
|||
https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 This was cited at 5:36 am on 26 January 2019 |
|||
* While the ISPR tweet which I quoted in my above comment https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100251560985145346 is from 8:29 am on 26 January 2019. |
|||
So which one of these tweets is new? DG ISPR clarified their error. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: The New York Times issued a second report [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-airstrikes.html], where the location is pin-pointed. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] that was reported before ISPR clarified their remarks. You can see that the article from NYT is citing the old tweet by ISPR which showed trees destroyed by the airstrike. I also remember reading that before DG ISPR clarified the location. If it was new then it most definitely would have cited the news tweet made by ISPR regarding the 3 to 4km claim. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources do not override [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources. If the ''New York Times'' made any correction to their reports, please let us know. |
|||
::: Also, please [[HELP:TALK]] to find out how to indent your posts properly. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] will these classify as reliable secondary sources: |
|||
* https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-pakistan-tension-where-is-the-real-balakot-the-indian-air-force-target-1.1551168559497 "The second Balakot where the Indian Air Force struck is a small village located around 4 to 5km from the Line of Control (LoC) in the Pakistan side of Kashmir." |
|||
* https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/ "According to the reports, the Balakot in question is one in Azad Jammu Kashmir. Indian jets could only come inside Pakistani airspace for 3-4 miles." |
|||
* https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indian-air-force-violated-line-of-control-claims-pakistan/articleshow/68161372.cms "Hours later, the ISPR said Indian aircrafts' "intrusion" across the LOC in Muzafarabad Sector was within 3-4 miles in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." |
|||
On the other hand, Pakistan defense minister claimed that Indian aircrafts came only 4 to 5km inside Pakistan. Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/balakot-air-strike-pak-ministers-grilled-by-media-on-why-paf-was-caught-napping/ "Khattak and Qureshi stuck to the '''Pakistani narrative that the IAF fighter aircraft only intruded 4-5 km inside Pakistan air space''' and that when they were challenged by PAF aircraft they returned back to Indian air space." |
|||
Hence you can see that Pakistan claim has always been from 3 to 4km or from 4 to 5km, not more then that. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 07:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: You titled this section as '''New York Times report'''. Please stick to that topic. If you want to discuss Pakistani reports, you are welcome to start a new section. But I think there would be little point in that. The Pakistani claims seem to have already been well-covered in the article. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] Answer me honestly first. Do you really believe that Pakistan is making all this diplomatic hullabaloo and media noise and nuclear command meeting simply because Indian jets came 4km inside LOC? Someone has to be really naive to think so. Please see the 12 min long video of DG ISPR PRESS BRIEFING on the incident. He talks about the location. Even Rajnath Singh clarified that this is the inner Balakot that has the big camp. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:DBigXray|DBigXray]] I thought we were supposed to be neutral here and should not care about what our personal opinion is regarding the situation. Why are you sticking to old claims? I have clearly fulfilled all the requirements which you and Kautilya3 told me about. All of the above cited source show that Pakistan narrative has always been 3 to 4 km or 4 to 5 km. It is newspapers fault that they interpreted it the wrong way. '''Here I will again post the newest tweet made by ISPR''': https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100207947022565377 please read it. Here are the newspaper citing it: |
|||
* https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indian-air-force-violated-line-of-control-claims-pakistan/articleshow/68161372.cmsn |
|||
* https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/where-is-balakot-did-india-enter-pakistani-airspace/ |
|||
If you don't want to change it then let some other neutral editor deal with the situation. [[User:Alibaloshi12|Alibaloshi12]] ([[User talk:Alibaloshi12|talk]]) 08:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*1. Please follow [[WP:INDENT]] |
|||
*2. CHECK OUT [https://in.reuters.com/article/india-kashmir-pakistan-scene-idINKCN1QF13S this Reuters article] and tell me which Balakot are they referring to? |
|||
*3. Show me a clear reference that clearly shows that Pakistani ISI Spox referred to the Azad KASHMIR "BALA KOTE" as being attacked. |
|||
:and then we can take you seriously --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 08:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Civilian deaths == |
|||
Civilian deaths in the shelling on the same day is both notable and widely reported.[https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/02/27/589656/Pakistani-killed-India-shelling-Kashmir][https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/indian-shelling-kills-civilians-pakistan-administered-kashmir-190226190841703.html][https://www.dawn.com/news/1466171] It should not be removed.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 03:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply-to|Gazoth}} its better to overcite in early stages of article editing. This content has already been removed once.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 03:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Nope. Please use the article talk page for such kind of spamming. OVERCITE is a problem and it will be fixed. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 08:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== IAF Strength edit == |
|||
Pls add the following planes:- |
|||
1.) 16-Mirage 2000 H/I |
|||
2.) 2-Illyshin IL-78 MKI |
|||
3.) 1-Embraer EMB-145 Netra |
|||
4.). 1- IAI Heron |
|||
5.). unknown Sukhoi Su-30 MKI _Srijanx22_ 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User talk:Srijanx22#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Srijanx22|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
update it is 12 Mirage 2000 not 16 while 4 Su-30 were used _Srijanx22_ 03:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User talk:Srijanx22#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Srijanx22|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:[[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] Please provide [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for the content that you want to add. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 04:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Sir the report was published in front page of The Times Of India newspaper.It is a highly reputed english newspaper in the country. |
|||
Also in the thier report they have mention 1 AWAC but in thier own news channel they said it was EMB-145. |
|||
_Srijanx22_ 05:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User talk:Srijanx22#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Srijanx22|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
1.)Below is the link that confirms that Embraer EMB-145 Netra was used in this operation:- |
|||
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iaf-strikes-flying-in-indian-airspace-eye-in-the-sky-netra-guided-mirage-2000-jets-to-balakot-1999729 _Srijanx22_ 05:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User talk:Srijanx22#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Srijanx22|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Weapons in Pulwama strike == |
|||
{{reply-to|Gazoth}} why was this removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=885292055&oldid=885291717]? It can be reworded, but it comes from a reliable source and is relevant.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:It would not be worth keeping after being reworded. After adding some attribution such as "New York Times stated that" and then further qualifying it with something along the lines of "likely", it would become too complicated for a summary. The details are always available in the main article. The summary should be short and simple. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 03:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Current event template == |
|||
I have removed the current event template, since it has already been 30 hours since the strikes finished. the reports are accurate now, official statements have also come--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 03:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== No images in article claiming there is == |
|||
In the Incident part, there is no image provided. And the article claims there is "Pakistan reported Indian aircraft violated their airspace near Muzaffarabad and "released a payload" near Balakot. They claimed that there was open space where the aircraft dropped the bombs, and provided images of destroyed forest to corroborate their account.[31]". Can anyone clarify if there are images released or not? If so, provide a link with them. [[User:Snitor|Snitor]] ([[User talk:Snitor|talk]]) 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor did release pictures at 5:11AM on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100231826348617728), however due to apparent sunlight and slow dirt buildup (sunrise in Pakistan was on 6:41AM), these claims may be false. [[User:GentleGiant121|GentleGiant121]] ([[User talk:GentleGiant121|talk]]) 02:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Image of Mirage 2000 == |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Indian Air Force Dassault Mirage 2000.JPG|Indian Air Force Dassault Mirage 2000 during Cope India 2004 |
|||
Dassault Mirage 2000.jpg|GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India -- An Indian air force Mirage 2000 taxis into position following a Cope India 2004 sortie |
|||
IAF Mirage 2000.jpg|: IAF Mirage 2000 at Aero India 2009. |
|||
KT211 AMD Mirage 2000TH Indian Air Force (8414614218).jpg|KT211 AMD Mirage 2000TH Indian Air Force |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Hi All, Please take a look at the [[:c:Category:Mirage 2000 (Indian Air Force)]] and suggest the most appropriate pic for the article. I personally feel [[:File:Dassault Mirage 2000.jpg]] looks best. suggestions invited. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 05:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes. [[:File:Dassault Mirage 2000.jpg]] seems fitting. Apart from that, [[:File:IAF Mirage 2000.jpg]] looks nice too. [[User:Shanze1|Shanze1]] ([[User talk:Shanze1|talk]]) 06:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Shanze1|Shanze1]] thanks, I have added the pic for now. Between the above two (which are nice pics), I preferred [[:File:Dassault Mirage 2000.jpg]] since it shows the taxing jet in action while the latter is in an exhibition with stairs etc. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 06:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
In the second paragraph first sentence: "According to India, the jets struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed-operated militant camp at Balakot, with 1,000 kg laser-guided bombs killing around 350 militants and returned back into Indian airspace unharmed without being engaged by Pakistani aircrafts" please change the last word to aircraft as this is a collective noun that does not require the addition of the letter s to render it plural. [[Special:Contributions/203.52.171.124|203.52.171.124]] ([[User talk:203.52.171.124|talk]]) 06:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 06:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== "According to India" == |
|||
Please limit phrases like "according to India" to official statements only. The media reports are highly unreliable in situations like this. They should not be labelled as "India". The same goes for "Pakistan". -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 06:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Tagged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=885308141&oldid=885307829]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point. "Indian media claimed", or "According to Pakistani media" etc would make more sense, although it is usually the Government of India that feeds Indian media the statements. Good to check though. N1 [[User:Billyshiverstick|Billyshiverstick]] ([[User talk:Billyshiverstick|talk]]) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Jet shot down == |
|||
There have been more air incursions and, reportedly, one Indian fighter shot down. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>]]'') 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:it is not a part of Balakot airstrike. it is a separate incident.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah. It may need an entirely new article, I dunno. Just FYI for everyone. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>]]'') 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::indeed, but news is not clear yet. Indian media is reporting something else.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 07:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{moved from|2019 Balakot airstrike}} |
|||
On February 27, Pakistan claimed that it had shot down two IAF jets, with one pilot arrested in its own Kashmir airspace.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47383634|title=Pakistan 'shoots down two Indian jets'|date=2019-02-27|access-date=2019-02-27|language=en-GB}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
*Hi {{yo|Sherenk1}} I have moved this to talk since India clarified that all its pilots are safe, appears as propaganda warfare. India claims that one F16 of Pakistan crashed in India. lets wait for clear news. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 07:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:*Hi {{yo|DBigXray}} That is why I specified claim. We can add India's clarification if we have the sources. [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 08:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::*NO, IMHO There is no need to rush in unconfirmed conflicting news information into the aftermath section. Let it be clarified first. This article is about the Balakot airstrike and not about the airspace violation done by PAF. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 08:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Statement released by ISPR is official and notable. [[Special:Contributions/39.37.149.198|39.37.149.198]] ([[User talk:39.37.149.198|talk]]) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.dawn.com/news/1466347 |
|||
* We should certainly mention the fake claims made by Pakistani media: [https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/iaf-jet-crash-fake-news-pakistani-media-1466153-2019-02-27 Do not believe Pakistan media. They are peddling FAKE NEWS of IAF jet crash]. People can have a good laugh over an otherwise grim story. [[Special:Contributions/117.198.113.198|117.198.113.198]] ([[User talk:117.198.113.198|talk]]) 08:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Why not to mention the New York times and the guardian articles which are laughing on India News surgical strike of killing a tree terrorist. [[Special:Contributions/39.37.149.198|39.37.149.198]] ([[User talk:39.37.149.198|talk]]) 09:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::* Didn't get you. Could you try writing that in English please? [[Special:Contributions/117.198.113.198|117.198.113.198]] ([[User talk:117.198.113.198|talk]]) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: There's been a confirmation of one IAF pilot MIA by Indian Foriegn Affairs ministry https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/air-force-pilot-missing-pakistan-claims-hes-in-their-custody-we-are-ascertaining-claims-government-2000101 [[Special:Contributions/152.14.118.25|152.14.118.25]] ([[User talk:152.14.118.25|talk]]) 10:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: India says lost one plane in Pakistan combat,<ref>http://news.trust.org//item/20190227100019-t9so1/</ref> pilot missing.<ref>https://www.thequint.com/news/india/iaf-air-force-pilots-missing-after-air-strike-pakistan</ref> How's the laugh? [[Special:Contributions/103.225.221.229|103.225.221.229]] ([[User talk:103.225.221.229|talk]]) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::* One pilot in exchange for 350 dead Pakistani terrorists? I'd say the laughs are very loud on this side of the border. [[Special:Contributions/117.198.113.198|117.198.113.198]] ([[User talk:117.198.113.198|talk]]) 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::* Yeah, Just some tree terrorists. Where is the proof? Even the families of pulwama victims asked for the proofs and pictures. Looks like a pacifier given to you by modi govt to win elections. You don't even have any technical proof or satellite images. [[Special:Contributions/119.152.133.208|119.152.133.208]] ([[User talk:119.152.133.208|talk]]) 16:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
Pak media are fake they showing old crash airplane photos.what a media!....laugh [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 11:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Pak news reporter dont have any proof of incident but talk on news like that they are army head of pak.... [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed that an Indian pilot is missing in action after a Mig-21 Bison fighter plane was lost while engaging with Pakistani jets after they violated Indian airspace.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/india-pak-tensions-live-iaf-wing-commander-missing-after-mig-21-crash-pakistan-claims-he-is-in-their-custody-says-govt-2049727.html|title=India-Pak Tensions LIVE: IAF Wing Commander Missing After MiG-21 Crash, Pakistan Claims He is in Their Custody, Says Govt|date=27 February 2019|website=News18|accessdate=27 February 2019}}</ref> [[Special:Contributions/182.179.183.1|182.179.183.1]] ([[User talk:182.179.183.1|talk]]) 12:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
What the great performance by mig 21 oldest figher shot down top fighter of pak f-16.how the josh? [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 05:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|User:Indiamerijaan2001}}Where is the proof? Pakistan showed all of its pictures and videos immediately. what are you waiting for? Looks like a pacifier given to you by modi govt to win elections. Try to follow international media. [[Special:Contributions/119.152.133.208|119.152.133.208]] ([[User talk:119.152.133.208|talk]]) 16:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Move to expand scope == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn.''' also moot, since the nom has now created separate article at the target location. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
{{requested move/old|2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation}} |
|||
[[:2019 Balakot airstrike]] → {{no redirect|2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation}} – [[2019_Balakot_airstrike#Aftermath|The aftermath section]] of this article is becoming longer than the incident itself, and should also mention the aircraft confrontations as mentioned in previous talk section. We should therefore expand the scope of this article, since the Balakot airstrike can then be put better in its context. This title is consistent with previous confrontation listed at [[Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts#Other_armed_engagements|Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts]]. I've started the target article, but it's practically still fitting to simply overwrite it with this one. [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 10:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Agree'''. More incidents are happening in the border and a single article covering everything would be better.[[User:Libin Scaria|Libin Scaria]] ([[User talk:Libin Scaria|talk]]) 10:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Agree'''. Yes. Covering the whole thing here is best and for that moving to new name is required. [[User:Shanze1|Shanze1]] ([[User talk:Shanze1|talk]]) 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Agree''' - As per above. [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' 2019 Balakot airstrike is a specific and internationally notable incident. If someone wants to create an article about all the standoffs and attacks that happened in 2019, they are welcome to do so, but that in itself is not a justification to get rid of the article that deals specifically with this Internationally notable event. I also note that there is another article titled [[2019 India–Pakistan standoff]] --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per above. The Pulwama attack, airstrike and its aftermath can be detailed at [[2019 India–Pakistan standoff]]. [[Special:Contributions/2.51.20.34|2.51.20.34]] ([[User talk:2.51.20.34|talk]]) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Withdrawing as nominator'''. I will now merge [[2019 India–Pakistan military confrontation]] to [[2019 India–Pakistan standoff]], and let this be a separate article. [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 10:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' This is the specific incident so I dont think it should be renamed or moved to already established article which is relatable but this incident is quiet independent and highly (Internationally notable) [[User:Iamzine13|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#5A0"> MrZINE</b>]] 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' no need to change [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|||
== Numbers 27.02.19 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
change "Destruction of JeM terror camp at Balakot, killing at least 325 terrorists" in the results section to "Destruction of JeM terror camp at Balakot, killing at least 350 terrorists" |
|||
as given sources give the number as 350, and the rest of the page gives the number as 350 [[User:UniqueUsername nr1453|UniqueUsername nr1453]] ([[User talk:UniqueUsername nr1453|talk]]) 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
@ [[UniqueUsername nr1453]],you are right there are 325 terrorist kill and 25 commandars therefore total is 350. [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 05:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Fixed already. –[[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 06:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
Reference Point 29: Here Nytimes article is quoted verbatim as, "Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country", but purposefeully only selective mention of article is done verbatim UPTO the "Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps" ommitting the rest of it. |
|||
So Please change "However, Western security officials questioned the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps" TO ""Western security officials have raised questions about the existence of a large-scale training camp, saying that Pakistan no longer runs such camps and that militant groups are spread out in small groups around the country"". Rajeevsingh007 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::That's a good point. However, it is unnecessary to attribute this to the New York Times, as it is a reliable source and no one has disputed its assertion that Western security analysts believe that. Otherwise, to be consistent, it would be necessary to attribute the other information in the background section too.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 01:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{replyto|Gazoth}} I'm open to rewording the sentence. It is good to not copy verbatim from newspapers and reword them.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 01:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|Bless sins}}, it's not just good, you are required to not copy paste text from copyrighted sources. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree. I'm not the one who copied and pasted. I propose: "Western security officials questioned the existence of such a training camp, saying that large camps are no longer operating in Pakistan, instead militant groups operate in small scattered groups." I'm open to other wording choices.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 01:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{u|Bless sins}}, I think that would be [[WP:CLOP|close paraphrasing]]. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 02:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do you have a wording proposal?[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 03:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
@ [[Bless sins]],pleace dont copy paste sentences. [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 05:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
Change 'Indian claim: 350 militants killed' to 'Indian claim: many militants killed' |
|||
Ref: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-government-s-full-statement-on-surgical-airstrike-in-pakistan-1465217-2019-02-26 |
|||
Reason: Officially India never stated 350, thats only Medias' view which varies from 200 to 350. Only official statements should be considered as the "claim". [[Special:Contributions/203.110.242.16|203.110.242.16]] ([[User talk:203.110.242.16|talk]]) 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Request correction of biased sentence == |
|||
I do not blame anyone for this biased statement. Note that Inidia claims all of Kashmir. The sentence in question is about the India view but says it crossed into Pakistan. No it cross the line of control, not Pakistan. Note I am for Wikipedia neutrality, not pro Pakistan. |
|||
Indian version |
|||
On 26 February 2019, twelve Mirage 2000 jets of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crossed the Line of Control around 3:30 am and bombed a JeM-operated terrorist camp at Balakot. The Indian foreign secretary termed the airstrike as "non-military, preemptive airstrikes".[9] This was India's first airstrike within Pakistan since the war of 1971.[30 |
|||
Better |
|||
This was India's first airstrike to cross the line of control since the war of 1971 |
|||
[[User:Janet Bourne|Janet Bourne]] ([[User talk:Janet Bourne|talk]]) 02:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
@ [[Janet Bourne]] you are very right. [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 05:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Janet Bourne}} [[Balakot]] is in [[Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa]] province in Pakistan. The current wording is factually accurate and I see nothing biased with it. [[Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:D0A:9E78:9076:D216:EEC:EAF8|2402:3A80:D0A:9E78:9076:D216:EEC:EAF8]] ([[User talk:2402:3A80:D0A:9E78:9076:D216:EEC:EAF8|talk]]) 05:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|Janet Bourne}} Hi Janet, the fighters first crossed the "line of control", in the disputed territory, and then crossed the recognized border between India and Pakistan. The statement is a bit confusing, but correct. Check out the map and you'll see how it was. If I had the Wiki Chops, I'd put the flight path on a map, but the Indian government is unlikely to release the flight path. I'll have a go at clarifying it. cheers [[User:Billyshiverstick|Billyshiverstick]] ([[User talk:Billyshiverstick|talk]]) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Add images of JEM camp == |
|||
Just now indian officials release images of jem camps it is very important proof to show world.please add it [[User:Indiamerijaan2001|Indiamerijaan2001]] ([[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|talk]]) 05:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Indiamerijaan2001}}, what? [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">∯</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 14:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Winged Blades of Godric}} nothing [[User talk:Indiamerijaan2001|<sup><span></sup>]] |
|||
:::[[User:Indiamerijaan2001]] please remember to provide the links of the content you are requesting to add.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Official spokesperson of government of India's statements == |
|||
[[File:Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff.jpg|thumb|Statement by official spokesperson of government of India on India Pakistan 2019 standoff]] |
|||
I do believe nothing else should be added to Indian claims in this article. [[User:Jasonx5|Jasonx5]] ([[User talk:Jasonx5|talk]]) 06:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
What I meant by '''nothing else''' in the above comment is that anything other than the Government of India's press releases or Tweets by any secretory of government of India should be called a claim by The Republic Of India same is for Islamic Republic of Pakistan. [[User:Jasonx5|Jasonx5]] ([[User talk:Jasonx5|talk]]) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
How can some one write a complete claimed base article without any sort of evidence? no bombs, no blasts, no dead bodies, no buildings nothing. I am as a writer asking to remove this page or write that its claimed by india only. Whole world and world wide media denies such claims by India. Why this page is protected for me to edit anything? [[User:Valerian11|Valerian11]] ([[User talk:Valerian11|talk]]) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:If you read carefully, the claims of all the stakeholders have been mentioned. And, since all these claims have garnered enough media coverage (not restricted by nationality, either), they shall be mentioned. As more and more neutral analysis comes, they will be added to the article. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">∯</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 06:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Of course Pakistan will deny any casualties and hide all evidence as usual. Just as they claim that there are no terrorists in their country and that they have won all the wars against India. What Pakistani government and media says should be taken with a pinch of salt. See [https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/ultimate-balakot-proof-jaish-e-mohammed-terror-training-camp-caught-on-camera/24839] [https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/02/28/pakistan-fighter-jets-tried-target-india-military-establishments-iaf.html] [[Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:D3A:F57F:DB72:DE70:4085:1DC4|2402:3A80:D3A:F57F:DB72:DE70:4085:1DC4]] ([[User talk:2402:3A80:D3A:F57F:DB72:DE70:4085:1DC4|talk]]) 07:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2019 == |
|||
The infobox presently has the Pakistan and Pakistani leaders in the right-side column. This doesn't make any sense, as the attack neither actually hit Pakistani state targets, nor was it intended to hit them. If we go by the intended parties in this conflict, the right side columns say "Jaish-e-Mohammed (alleged)" under "Belligerents" and perhaps list some of the chief militants of JeM, especially if there's evidence Indian intelligence expected them to be there at the time of the bombing; on the other hand, if we go by the actual targets, it should say "None" under "Belligerents" and not lkst any commanders. In either case, however, we should list "None" and "0" under "Units involved" and "Strength", respectively. What definitely ''doesn't'' make sense is the present wording which implies the target was the Pakistani military. It is true that Pakistan subsequently retaliated in the [[2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes]], but that's a different subject with its own article. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=no}} |
|||
:But they were still in charge. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Could some one add neutral claims of no casualties under the casualties sections, since there are some neutral claims made by various sources: |
|||
::In charge of what? An empty forest with no one it? The trees that got hurt? Also, you reverted multiple edits by me, some of which were basically minor copyediting jobs or minor expansions of the content based on the given sources, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe are remotely controversial. You can't just revert edits and claim they require "consensus"; you need to also explain what specific objections you have. I understand the infobox revert but not the revert you made to my changes to the body. Was this an accident, by you, in an attempt to just revert my infobox changes? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I can do that (read [[WP:ONUS]], and [[wp:brd]]), and as an example, a commander is the person in command, that is what it means, not that they were a target or combatant. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Can do what? You're not making any sense, and also not responding to my questions. If you don't have any specific objections to my NON-infobox changes, I am going to reinstate my changes. They were really quite minor and I am flummoxed as to what there even is to challenge; this has the smell of [[WP:STONEWALL]] all over it. [[WP:BRD]] clearly states to only revert when necessary, and only if you can't make improvements yourself; it also states {{tq|be specific about your reasons in the edit summary}}. I've seen 0 evidence of you even making an attempt to do any of that. [[WP:ONUS]] is about verifiability, but you haven't even made any specific claims about the verifiability of my edits, or even given any specific reasons why you dislike them (besides those in the infobox)! This is thoroughly unsurprising, since my body edits were extremely minor edits, all already verified by the pre-existing sources. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Read [[WP:ONUS]] and do not [[wp:editwar]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Which claims did I make ''outside'' the infobox which you feel are not verified? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There are no commanders listed as belligerents, only India and Pakistan and their respective airforces. No person is named (in the infobox). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sigh. I fully concede that you have made your objections known about the infobox changes, but you also reverted my changes to the body. This is the last time I will ask this question myself: do you have '''any''' concrete objections to the ''non-''infobox edits? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::See below. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Below where you flatly refuse to engage? [[WP:BRD]] explicitly says it {{tq|is not a [[Get Out of Jail Free card|get-out-of-discussion-free card]] for the reverter}}, yet that is exactly how you are using it. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::By the way this article is a comprise that tries to please both sides, do not try and shift the emphasis. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Can you explain how my edits do that? Your comments are so vague I have trouble understanding what you are even talking about, but I suspect you might need to review [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Not yet, I am about to go out, hopefully others will. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Sorry, but this isn't how Wikipedia works. [[WP:BRD]] clearly states that it {{tq|is not a [[Get Out of Jail Free card|get-out-of-discussion-free card]] for the reverter}}, and that reverters should {{tq|be specific about your reasons in the edit summary}}, and you have failed to provide a reason for your revert to my non-infobox changes, and are completely refusing to even attempt to explain your non-infobox-related reverts. You are very obviously engaging in [[WP:STONEWALLING]]. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence. This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again. Thus I was trying to head off any edit waring. We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue). Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few? We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::{{quote|As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence.}} |
|||
::::::::::::Which "sides" are you even talking about? If one of those sides is the Indian government, sorry, but all reliable sources agree: ''they lied''. There is no reason to take their lies seriously in the pursuit of a "neutral POV"—this is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. And the consensus from previous discussions has been that the claims of the Indian government should not be reported uncritically on this (and other) affairs, and as a result of this incident and other similar ones, previous RfCs and discussions have led to a number of Indian media sources being downgraded in perceived reliability. All of this has little to do with my edits, frankly, but you seem to labor under a misconception that is worth correcting. |
|||
::::::::::::{{quote|This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again.}} |
|||
::::::::::::Then why ''did'' you kick it off again, over a complete frivolity? You can't kick off a dispute and then claim it was to prevent dispute—you are the one who initiated it, take some responsibility! Anyways, your argument amounts to "this page should never change because some people's feathers were ruffled in the past", and is especially laughable when the edits being challenged are as minor as they are. |
|||
::::::::::::{{quote|We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue)}} |
|||
::::::::::::Finally an actual, substantive discussion of my edits, instead of meaningnless vagueposting. Lead with this next time. |
|||
:::::::::::: If you already know they are human, why does adding the word change anything? Anyways, you concede it's not a major issue (though that has hardly stopped you from somehow trying to transform it into one). |
|||
::::::::::::{{tq|Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few?}} |
|||
::::::::::::Did you read the source? No, of course not, because you are using [[WP:BRD]] expressly as it is not to be used, as means of freezing articles, and thus did not do your due diligence. I changed the wording from {{tq|Some Western diplomats}} to {{tq|Western diplomats in Islamabad}} because the latter is, verbatim, the wording used in the source, whereas the former is not and is unspecific, besides being bad style (the reasons why I changed it). I cannot imagine that ''even'' the basest far right Hindutva ideologue who uncritically believes every word that drops from Modi's mouth would find my wording to be more controversial than the prior wording—if anything, it necessarily limits the scope of the involved officials even more, to just those in Islamabad—so I am once again amazed you are challenging it. It is simply, verbatim, the wording used in the source. |
|||
::::::::::::{{quote|We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings).}} |
|||
::::::::::::The reason I made this change is precisely because of the ''prior'' existence of exactly that sort of contradiction. In your preferred version, the article reads "Villagers from the area spoke of four bombs striking a nearby forest and field around 3 am, damaging a building, and injuring a local man... lThe local hospital officials and residents asserted that they did not come across any casualty or wounded people.}} I was confused by this, as anyone would be, because how did the {{tq|villagers}}/{{tq|residents}} both report the bomb {{tq|injuring a local man}} ''and'' that they did not {{tq|come across any... wounded people}}? The apparent contradiction revolved by using slightly more ''specific wording'', which was what all my edits (outside the infobox) were trying to do: they identified a local man received some bruises and cuts, but there were no "real" injuries (and thus no one went to the hospital). This is clear from my version, and completely inexplicable from yours, without tracing down what each source said, as I did. That is the whole and entire reason I mentioned specific injuries/damages at all. And there is no contradiction in my version if you understand what the phrase "other than" means. |
|||
::::::::::::Finally, re: the infobox, did you see Vanamonde's comment below? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Which source says there was no injuries or damage? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Not what I said. Reread please. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Its what we are talking about, this edit [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=1216042857]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*That parameter makes about as much sense as using "infobox military conflict". I think it's use makes sense given the use of military force in the territory of a different sovereign country, but perhaps infobox military operation might be better suited? I have no strong opinion, but the parameter itself is a distraction, discussing this requires discussing the framing of the entire infobox. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:That's a much better solution, thank you. Using {{tl|Infobox military operation}} didn't occur to me, but that's obviously the most appropriate infobox here. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 22:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024 == |
|||
1) [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-india-pakistan-conflict-balakot-arms-trade-jaish-e-mohammed-a8800076.html?amp] The Independent asserts that "Like many Israeli boasts of hitting similar targets, the Indian adventure into Pakistan might owe more to the imagination than military success. The “300-400 terrorists” supposedly eliminated by the Israeli-manufactured and Israeli-supplied GPS-guided bombs may turn out to be little more than rocks and trees." |
|||
{{Edit extended-protected|2019 Balakot airstrike|answered=yes}} |
|||
2) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-village/pakistani-village-asks-where-are-bodies-of-militants-india-says-it-bombed-idUSKCN1QH298] Reuters report that "Western diplomats in Islamabad also said they did not believe the Indian air force hit a militant camp. |
|||
On February 26, 12 Mirages took off from multiple air bases, crossed over into the Pakistani air space and carried out attacks on the JeM terror camp. IAF pilots dropped five Spice 2000 bombs, out of which four penetrated the rooftops of the building in which the terrorists were sleeping. The attacks were carried out at 3:30 am and within a few minutes after dropping bombs on their targets, the IAF jets returned to their bases. |
|||
“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." [[Special:Contributions/5.21.246.31|5.21.246.31]] ([[User talk:5.21.246.31|talk]]) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
The aircraft used in the attack belonged to the No 7 and No 9 squadrons of the Indian Air Force and included the non-upgraded planes as the upgraded Mirages of the No 1 squadron did not have the air-to-ground strike capability at that time. |
|||
== Claims of coverup == |
|||
The weapons: Apart from IAF’s highly-skilled pilots and the Research & Analysis Wing’s (RAW) accurate intel, India spread out a line of weaponry and aircraft from its arsenal. While Mirage 2000 were used to drop bombs on targeted sites, a set of other Mirages with Su-30MKI combat aircraft kept the Pakistan air force planes away from causing any hindrance or launching any counter-offensive. [[User:Docaseem.srivastava|Docaseem.srivastava]] ([[User talk:Docaseem.srivastava|talk]]) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Where does this article[https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/pakistan-trying-to-hide-dead-body-of-terrorists-in-balakot-tries-to-debunk-india-claims-source/story/322532.html] get its information from? If its getting it from the Indian military, then it should be treated as an official Indian claim. If not, it should give some indication as to where the information came from. This is quite poor journalism to make claims out of thin air.[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] ([[User talk:Bless sins|talk]]) 23:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Jamedeus|Jamedeus]] ([[User talk:Jamedeus|talk]]) 22:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:32, 9 June 2024
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox "belligerents" doesn't make any sense
The infobox presently has the Pakistan and Pakistani leaders in the right-side column. This doesn't make any sense, as the attack neither actually hit Pakistani state targets, nor was it intended to hit them. If we go by the intended parties in this conflict, the right side columns say "Jaish-e-Mohammed (alleged)" under "Belligerents" and perhaps list some of the chief militants of JeM, especially if there's evidence Indian intelligence expected them to be there at the time of the bombing; on the other hand, if we go by the actual targets, it should say "None" under "Belligerents" and not lkst any commanders. In either case, however, we should list "None" and "0" under "Units involved" and "Strength", respectively. What definitely doesn't make sense is the present wording which implies the target was the Pakistani military. It is true that Pakistan subsequently retaliated in the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, but that's a different subject with its own article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- But they were still in charge. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- In charge of what? An empty forest with no one it? The trees that got hurt? Also, you reverted multiple edits by me, some of which were basically minor copyediting jobs or minor expansions of the content based on the given sources, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe are remotely controversial. You can't just revert edits and claim they require "consensus"; you need to also explain what specific objections you have. I understand the infobox revert but not the revert you made to my changes to the body. Was this an accident, by you, in an attempt to just revert my infobox changes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that (read WP:ONUS, and wp:brd), and as an example, a commander is the person in command, that is what it means, not that they were a target or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can do what? You're not making any sense, and also not responding to my questions. If you don't have any specific objections to my NON-infobox changes, I am going to reinstate my changes. They were really quite minor and I am flummoxed as to what there even is to challenge; this has the smell of WP:STONEWALL all over it. WP:BRD clearly states to only revert when necessary, and only if you can't make improvements yourself; it also states
be specific about your reasons in the edit summary
. I've seen 0 evidence of you even making an attempt to do any of that. WP:ONUS is about verifiability, but you haven't even made any specific claims about the verifiability of my edits, or even given any specific reasons why you dislike them (besides those in the infobox)! This is thoroughly unsurprising, since my body edits were extremely minor edits, all already verified by the pre-existing sources. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)- Read WP:ONUS and do not wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which claims did I make outside the infobox which you feel are not verified? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are no commanders listed as belligerents, only India and Pakistan and their respective airforces. No person is named (in the infobox). Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. I fully concede that you have made your objections known about the infobox changes, but you also reverted my changes to the body. This is the last time I will ask this question myself: do you have any concrete objections to the non-infobox edits? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- See below. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Below where you flatly refuse to engage? WP:BRD explicitly says it
is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter
, yet that is exactly how you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Below where you flatly refuse to engage? WP:BRD explicitly says it
- See below. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. I fully concede that you have made your objections known about the infobox changes, but you also reverted my changes to the body. This is the last time I will ask this question myself: do you have any concrete objections to the non-infobox edits? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- By the way this article is a comprise that tries to please both sides, do not try and shift the emphasis. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain how my edits do that? Your comments are so vague I have trouble understanding what you are even talking about, but I suspect you might need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not yet, I am about to go out, hopefully others will. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this isn't how Wikipedia works. WP:BRD clearly states that it
is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter
, and that reverters shouldbe specific about your reasons in the edit summary
, and you have failed to provide a reason for your revert to my non-infobox changes, and are completely refusing to even attempt to explain your non-infobox-related reverts. You are very obviously engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)- As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence. This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again. Thus I was trying to head off any edit waring. We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue). Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few? We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence.
- Which "sides" are you even talking about? If one of those sides is the Indian government, sorry, but all reliable sources agree: they lied. There is no reason to take their lies seriously in the pursuit of a "neutral POV"—this is WP:FALSEBALANCE. And the consensus from previous discussions has been that the claims of the Indian government should not be reported uncritically on this (and other) affairs, and as a result of this incident and other similar ones, previous RfCs and discussions have led to a number of Indian media sources being downgraded in perceived reliability. All of this has little to do with my edits, frankly, but you seem to labor under a misconception that is worth correcting.
This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again.
- Then why did you kick it off again, over a complete frivolity? You can't kick off a dispute and then claim it was to prevent dispute—you are the one who initiated it, take some responsibility! Anyways, your argument amounts to "this page should never change because some people's feathers were ruffled in the past", and is especially laughable when the edits being challenged are as minor as they are.
We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue)
- Finally an actual, substantive discussion of my edits, instead of meaningnless vagueposting. Lead with this next time.
- If you already know they are human, why does adding the word change anything? Anyways, you concede it's not a major issue (though that has hardly stopped you from somehow trying to transform it into one).
Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few?
- Did you read the source? No, of course not, because you are using WP:BRD expressly as it is not to be used, as means of freezing articles, and thus did not do your due diligence. I changed the wording from
Some Western diplomats
toWestern diplomats in Islamabad
because the latter is, verbatim, the wording used in the source, whereas the former is not and is unspecific, besides being bad style (the reasons why I changed it). I cannot imagine that even the basest far right Hindutva ideologue who uncritically believes every word that drops from Modi's mouth would find my wording to be more controversial than the prior wording—if anything, it necessarily limits the scope of the involved officials even more, to just those in Islamabad—so I am once again amazed you are challenging it. It is simply, verbatim, the wording used in the source. We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings).
- The reason I made this change is precisely because of the prior existence of exactly that sort of contradiction. In your preferred version, the article reads "Villagers from the area spoke of four bombs striking a nearby forest and field around 3 am, damaging a building, and injuring a local man... lThe local hospital officials and residents asserted that they did not come across any casualty or wounded people.}} I was confused by this, as anyone would be, because how did the
villagers
/residents
both report the bombinjuring a local man
and that they did notcome across any... wounded people
? The apparent contradiction revolved by using slightly more specific wording, which was what all my edits (outside the infobox) were trying to do: they identified a local man received some bruises and cuts, but there were no "real" injuries (and thus no one went to the hospital). This is clear from my version, and completely inexplicable from yours, without tracing down what each source said, as I did. That is the whole and entire reason I mentioned specific injuries/damages at all. And there is no contradiction in my version if you understand what the phrase "other than" means. - Finally, re: the infobox, did you see Vanamonde's comment below? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which source says there was no injuries or damage? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not what I said. Reread please. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Its what we are talking about, this edit [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not what I said. Reread please. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which source says there was no injuries or damage? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I said above, this page has been worked at to a state where neither side's POV is given undue prominence. This is deliberate, it's called compromise, and the one thing we do not need is for it to all kick off again. Thus I was trying to head off any edit waring. We do not need the word Human, as we know what we mean by no casualties, but it's not a major issue). Did all western diplomats say this, or was it only a few? We do not need a list of injuries or damage, it also odd to say there was no damage to people, immediately after mentioning that someone was injured (ditto for no damage to buildings). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this isn't how Wikipedia works. WP:BRD clearly states that it
- Not yet, I am about to go out, hopefully others will. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain how my edits do that? Your comments are so vague I have trouble understanding what you are even talking about, but I suspect you might need to review WP:FALSEBALANCE. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:ONUS and do not wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can do what? You're not making any sense, and also not responding to my questions. If you don't have any specific objections to my NON-infobox changes, I am going to reinstate my changes. They were really quite minor and I am flummoxed as to what there even is to challenge; this has the smell of WP:STONEWALL all over it. WP:BRD clearly states to only revert when necessary, and only if you can't make improvements yourself; it also states
- Yes, I can do that (read WP:ONUS, and wp:brd), and as an example, a commander is the person in command, that is what it means, not that they were a target or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- In charge of what? An empty forest with no one it? The trees that got hurt? Also, you reverted multiple edits by me, some of which were basically minor copyediting jobs or minor expansions of the content based on the given sources, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe are remotely controversial. You can't just revert edits and claim they require "consensus"; you need to also explain what specific objections you have. I understand the infobox revert but not the revert you made to my changes to the body. Was this an accident, by you, in an attempt to just revert my infobox changes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- That parameter makes about as much sense as using "infobox military conflict". I think it's use makes sense given the use of military force in the territory of a different sovereign country, but perhaps infobox military operation might be better suited? I have no strong opinion, but the parameter itself is a distraction, discussing this requires discussing the framing of the entire infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's a much better solution, thank you. Using {{Infobox military operation}} didn't occur to me, but that's obviously the most appropriate infobox here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024
On February 26, 12 Mirages took off from multiple air bases, crossed over into the Pakistani air space and carried out attacks on the JeM terror camp. IAF pilots dropped five Spice 2000 bombs, out of which four penetrated the rooftops of the building in which the terrorists were sleeping. The attacks were carried out at 3:30 am and within a few minutes after dropping bombs on their targets, the IAF jets returned to their bases.
The aircraft used in the attack belonged to the No 7 and No 9 squadrons of the Indian Air Force and included the non-upgraded planes as the upgraded Mirages of the No 1 squadron did not have the air-to-ground strike capability at that time.
The weapons: Apart from IAF’s highly-skilled pilots and the Research & Analysis Wing’s (RAW) accurate intel, India spread out a line of weaponry and aircraft from its arsenal. While Mirage 2000 were used to drop bombs on targeted sites, a set of other Mirages with Su-30MKI combat aircraft kept the Pakistan air force planes away from causing any hindrance or launching any counter-offensive. Docaseem.srivastava (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (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. Jamedeus (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)