Jump to content

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

River waters

There is unconfirmed news that the Chenab river has been blocked at Baglihar and Salal Dam. And also that Jhelum river waters have been released causing floods downstream. Please look out for confirmation. This is escalating way too fast. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Jhelum flooding is mostly being reported on independent social media posts. Although there are reports of speeding up of hydropower projects on the rivers. >>> Extorc.talk 17:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 IndiaToday is the first to report. Most RS are avoiding for now. >>> Extorc.talk 05:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Grammar error in introduction

"an terrorist attack" should be "a terrorist attack" Carbonylgroup314 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Due to editing block, I ask to add links to sides. In first line "India" should link to India page, and "Pakistan" to Pakistan page.

Change from:

On 23 April 2025, a diplomatic crisis between India and Pakistan began.

To:

On 23 April 2025, a diplomatic crisis between India and Pakistan began.

Gawronft (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Already done by Arcturus95 saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 05:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan official says a war could break in the next 24-36 hours

I think it should be added to the article. Eitan Drutman (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Alongside with the tensions rising even more in the last hours. Eitan Drutman (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Eitan Drutman Can you please provide the source? Because nearly every official from both sides is saying that. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 06:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
That isn't relevant anymore... Eitan Drutman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
38 hours has passed.... Eitan Drutman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

India Ban Pakistani YouTube Channel

 Not done: Unclear, unsourced, and non-encyclopedic. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2025 (2)

Indus water treaty was suspended not cancelled Abhiram1298 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

mock drills accross india - war preparation

add: mock drills across india to be conducted on may11 and to given directiosn to establish sirens in all states by the central government https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/mha-orders-civil-defence-drills-in-multiple-states-as-india-pakistan-tensions-rise-after-pahalgam-attack/articleshow/120902025.cms?from=mdr 雄奇 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you possibly get a second source, this source is a bit iffy consensus wise. Valorrr (lets chat) 03:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian casualties

A vehicle of the Indian army fell into a gorge and 3 soldiers died I think we should add this information in the infobox https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jammu-and-kashmir/soldiers-killed-as-army-vehicle-plunges-into-gorge-in-jammu-and-kashmir-ramban-updates/article69537255.ece DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 Its an accident , unrelated to conflict Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 09:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
if i remember correctly Indian airforce shot down it's own helicopter in the previous standoff and the casualties were mentioned in the infobox.
Its an accident , unrelated to conflict
it's an accident on that you and I both agree but is it unrelated to conflict that neither you nor I can substantiate at this moment I'll try to find more reliable sources in the meantime. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@DataCrusade1999 The friendly fire in 2019 was a direct result of the military escalations that took place then. This, as of now, appears disjoint. >>> Extorc.talk 18:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
not to mention. its an accident , not part of the topic 雄奇 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (6)

At the top of the page, add

This page is about the diplomatic crisis. For military escalation resulting from this, see 2025 India–Pakistan strikes.

or a variation with similar meaning. With how both articles are named, I think they should be distinguished. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_strikes#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_8_May_2025_(2) 

laptop bird talkcontribs 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done Please start a merge request to gain consensus for this change. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move (30 April 2025)

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against moving. The article may be moved anyway at some point in the future, but currently this is premature. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 India–Pakistan standoff → 2025 India–Pakistan crisis – The article has recently been moved to "2025 India-Pakistan standoff", but the word standoff does not cover up the whole scenario. Standoff refers to a deadlock between two sides over a dispute, but cisis refers to a time of trouble or instability, which in being occurred actually, both diplomatically & militarily. Apart from this fact, I also want to point out the naming of 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, which did not started as a military engagement but as a bilateral crisis. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

>>> Extorc.talk 11:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

*Oppose. Crisis mean which type of crisis ? I suggest that it has to be Redirect to this page. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 08:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC) – Sock strike. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - As of right now, tensions are not at the level where they can be expanded into crisis. However, considering Islamophobic sentiment in India over the attacks in the media and online, I'm very much concerned that this will become a crisis. Having learned about 9/11 every year at school since I was in 4th Grade, I know what it's like to feel as if your institutions are trying to provoke hate. Young N' Brash (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: most article regarding India-Pakistan in this particular context follow standoff wording. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for now while the situation evolves. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree - With the recent (06/05/2025) Indian ballistic missile attack on Pakistan we now see heavy weapons being used directly open war feels remarkably close. Not to forget that both are nuclear armed. CMDRGarbage (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support: standoff has escalated as of the 6 of May. It seems more accurate to call it a crisis now that heavy weaponry is being used and open attacks are being conducted. 2018rebel 23:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Wait - Given that the Pakistani prime minister Shehbaz Sharif has called the recent events an "act of war"[1][2], it may be best to wait and see how not only leaders of both countries describe this phase of the standoff, but also how reliable sources report on it to. It's entirely possible that "war" does end up describing what's transpiring, but of course that is just crystal balling, and the same reasoning goes for "crisis" as well, hence why we should wait until this settles into something that reliable sources can agree upon calling it before making our own judgements as to what's happening. Gramix13 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "India launches strikes deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan claims Indian jets shot down, in major escalation". CNN. 6 May 2025. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
  2. ^ Baloch, Shah Meer; Hassan, Aakash (6 May 2025). "Pakistan vows to retaliate after wave of Indian missiles hits country". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Athletics Championships postponed

Is this really relevant for the "outcome" section? SnoozerMan (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Removed. >>> Extorc.talk 16:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Add operation sindhur

Add operation sindhur 雄奇 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Dont add anything based on initial reports. Let elaborate reporting happen on the event. There is going to be alot of "claims" of action. >>> Extorc.talk 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025

Please remove the casualties on Indian Side as they are not confirmed yet. PremiumStupid (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done This is sourced material. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 (2)

Please change 5 Indian jets shot down to no jets shot down. PremiumStupid (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done This is supported by a citation, you'll need to provide a reliable source verifying that it is not true. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 (3)

Please change the sentences from India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) also strongly urged Indian citizens to avoid traveling to Pakistan, and called on those currently in the country to return at the earliest opportunity. to

India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) also strongly urged Indian citizens to avoid travelling to Pakistan, and called on those currently in the country to return at the earliest opportunity.

We need to emphasize the usage of Commonwealth English spelling (or its equivalent such as Indian English) in the article due to both India and Pakistan are use a spelling similar to the UK. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've changed the spelling of the word. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

remove israel and china from infobox

Israel and China both countries have made statement that's it take a look at other India-Pakistan articles that are comparable to this one and take cue from those. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 You can remove it lol. WP:BOLD Alexysun (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Green tickY Done Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 (4)

Anup78692 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: No edit request made. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 (5)

Please change the 2nd last sentence of the lead from, "On 7 May, Indian armed forces carried out air and missile strikes across several cities in Pakistan." to, "On 7 May, Indian armed forces carried out air and missile strikes on some terror camps in Pakistan."-Mossadegh2 (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been used as a source for the same/similar sentence in the lead of the article on the 2025 Pahalgam attack (see the last sentence of the lead of that article) and can be used in this article also for the above sentence.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
RogerYg can you please change the sentence mentioned above?-Mossadegh2 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done Please see WP:TERRORIST. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition of a Belligerent

I kindly request you to add Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), a UN-designated terrorist group, in the list of belligerents on the pakistan side, below that of LeT. The reason for my request is that JeM is reported to be allied to pakistan on the kashmir cause, and the fact that Indian strikes not only targeted LeT but also JeM. General Phoenix (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

They arent involved in the standoff as such. They were targeted in the strikes, that is separate. >>> Extorc.talk 16:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025

Pakistan shot down an Indian spy drone in Lahore today.

https://samaa.tv/2087333100-explosions-sirens-in-lahore-police-claim-indian-drone-shot-down?__cf_chl_rt_tk=Oo8kqatQMFtUzdiSiSKqRCboMYLrXhR1fDaJT4PlsQM-1746676770-1.0.1.1-t_wL2LTIe4Obf7TLlblUcQSo9XOJ4b9N.6AwaE5xTMw

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/882824-indian-drone-shot-down-in-lahore-amid-rising-tensions 9Ahmed9 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not a request. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

update Pakistan death toll

It is 31 now

https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/07/death-toll-rises-on-both-sides-as-india-fires-missiles-into-pakistan-in-act-of-war

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwyneele13qt DataCrusade1999 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

31 what? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Add about pakistani war crimes.. bombing School

Pakistan deliberately bombed school in poonch, India

https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/poonch-12-killed-after-schools-gurudwara-and-houses-targeted-by-pakistan-army/3836276/ 150.129.164.210 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not a request. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (2)

Drones from Indian side are being shot at Pakistan side on daily basis since 6th May, this will cause more conflict escalations. ABDULMATEENKHAN7 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Give references too 9Ahmed9 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done Not a request. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition of losses on the Pakistani side

losses: (1) Abdul Rauf Azhar- brother of masood azhar, leader of JeM, killed in an IAF air strike. (2) PAF JF-17 shot down by indian defences. (3) Stadium in pakistan destroyed in indian missile attack. References will be added soon, in the meantime do look into these yourself. General Phoenix (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@General PhoenixLack of RS reporting >>> Extorc.talk 15:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (3)

The 5 aircraft supposedly downed by Pakistan was almost certainly a false claim as the Pakistani Defense Minister said that he himself had learnt of it on social media whilst live on CNN. DatChernobylGuy (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

CNN, Reuters, BBC, and NYT have all corroborated the Pakistani claim to some degree. A French intelligence officer confirmed at least one Rafale was shot down and now U.S. officials have confirmed at least two Indian fighter air crafts were shot down by the Pakistanis. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done This is not a request. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (4)

According to the Indian government, the HQ-9 air defense system has been neutralized, Which is missing in article. 103.47.72.92 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this change. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (5)

i dont think the downing of an f16 and a jf17 thunder is a fact since its not confirmed by any photo or video evidence Rehmane34 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this change. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (2)

146.196.37.222 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done. Not a request. Soni (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (6)

100 millitants killed. 2405:201:8005:B1:DDC:BF1F:4A90:8F0B (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No sources provided, not clear from which side millitants were killed. Closing the request.Lova Falk (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (5)

No aircraft of India has been shot yet There's no official confirmation from either france or India of downing of a Rafael or any Indian fighter.India mentioned all pilots returned safely after the operation 42.108.147.219 (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (9)

"change 2-3 AIRCRAFT SHOTDOWN to PER PAKISTAN ALLEGEDLY 2-3 AIRCRAFTS ARE SHOT DOWN" 117.237.11.70 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (7)

100 millitants of pakistan killed 2405:201:8005:B1:DDC:BF1F:4A90:8F0B (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (2)

There's no offical claim from neither from US or France or any other country except Pakistan about Downing of 2-3 Indian Aircrafts. 103.249.4.225 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Source

Citation [5] was given to describe Chinese international support of Pakistan side, article source given lacks mention of Chinese involvement 66.220.201.44 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just dumping some sourcing here. Recognize I can't edit yet but noticed the page is lacking in a lot of current sourcing so figured I'd contribute some. Note several pages are live. Further note references provided are effectively just links, not fully formed references. You may find some of these sources useful in informing your analysis as new info arises or simply sourcing your work.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I imagine several active editors are from India/Pakistan, and extend my best wishes and hopes that all and their loved ones are safe and well. CSGinger14 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  1. ^ "India launches air strikes on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir - latest". BBC News. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  2. ^ Masood, Salman; Mashal, Mujib; Kumar, Hari (2025-05-06). "India Strikes Pakistan Two Weeks After Kashmir Terrorist Attack". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  3. ^ Hale, Abid Hussain,Lyndal Rowlands,John Power,Erin. "India fires missile barrage into Pakistan as war fears surge". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-05-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ dhojnacki (2025-05-07). "Experts react: India just launched airstrikes against Pakistan. What's next?". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  5. ^ Kugelman, Michael (2025-05-03). "How the India-Pakistan Crisis Could Spiral". TIME. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  6. ^ "Has the U.S. Prevented Another India-Pakistan War? | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs". www.belfercenter.org. 2025-05-05. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  7. ^ Schumann, Anna (2019-11-26). "History of Conflict in India and Pakistan". Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  8. ^ "L'Inde a bombardé le Pakistan, qui dénonce « un acte de guerre »" (in French). 2025-05-07. Retrieved 2025-05-07.
  9. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2002-07-01). "India and Pakistan: Interpreting the Divergence of Two Political Trajectories". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 15 (2): 251–267. doi:10.1080/09557570220151290a. ISSN 0955-7571.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14. I understand your intentions. However, I'd recommend using Template:Refideas to better display potential useful references. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Fixed! CSGinger14 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint but that's not what I meant.... Template:Ref-talk and Template:Refideas are different templates with somewhat different goals to accomplish. I'll fix it, however. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@CSGinger14. I've added citations which are potentially useful at the top of this page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I see now, apologies. I'll add more and fix up when I get a chance if you'd feel it'd be helpful
CSGinger14 (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Jf17

Alot of Non RS are reporting the downing of a JF17. Also there are confirmed reports of downing of Jets near Jammu and Bhatinda. Look out for Confirmation in WP:RS. >>> Extorc.talk 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The 3 fighter jet shoot down, lacks credible source

The claim of 3 indian jets shot down is not verified and lacks credible source.The source provided is of a fuel tank which is usually dropped after refuel ing. Avd3939 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Lacks source

The 3 Jets being shot down is not confirmed and should be rather included in the claims section rather than the proven damages. neither of the countries officials have not validated the claims with proof. Avd3939 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done the information on whether the 3 are related to the 5 claimed by pakistan and so on, such confirmations must be sought. >>> Extorc.talk 12:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

pakistani claims

pakistan defence minister himself has retracted his claims stating no plane was shot by pak and no indian is captured Sarvagyalal (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

sources? Boud (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This article's relationship with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

FYI, there is an article at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict that probably needs harmonization with this one. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Unless someone objects, I think that WP:MERGEINIT applies here: If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it. Boud (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Might be better to wait until the two competing requested moves at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan strikes are sorted out. Boud (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't envy the task ahead for editors to harmonize the two. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I’d argue this one takes primacy, as strikes tend to denote actions taken by government with the intent of providing a show of force that doesn’t necessarily force them into a situation of conflict. The fact of the strikes themselves isn’t penultimately important and doesn’t simply become ‘conflict’. unless it’s absent the context of a larger ‘standoff’. As the situation unfolds and more actions take place we’ll see which one it becomes, though.
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Intro mention discrepancy

This article says 27 people were killed in the first paragraph. But the article 2025 Pahalgam attack says 26 civilians in the first paragraph. EldenMacdonald (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to include a map in "Operation Sindoor" subsection

To clearly represent the information in this subsection, it would be best to include a map marking the said locations. This map should also be included in the main article of this. InfoCookie (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Bias

The article in "escalation" section mentions civilian indian casualties by name, while mentions no pakistani civilian casualties? Why? 154.181.53.0 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

JF-17 shot down

The Pakistan military spokesperson has acknowledged the crash of 2 JF-17. Avd3939 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Per what source? Provide a link to same. XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no link. AFAIK it was an AI-generated clip. نعم البدل (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no proof. Indians are spreading misinformation by the second by posting AI-generated audio clips and videos. Please wait for credible sources like Reuters, AP, BBC and/or CNN. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

CNN and Reuters have corroborated the Pakistani account of having downed Indian jets

CNN has spoken to a French intelligence officer and confirmed at least one Rafale has been downed by Pakistan: https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-attack-kashmir-tourists-intl-hnk#cmadq2i4j00003b6tu7krhsys

Reuters has spoken to two U.S. officials and confirmed that Pakistani jets have downed at least two Indian fighter aircrafts: https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/ ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is as credible as it will get; the Indian military is notorious for hiding casualties and admitting to them months later. These two kills should go into a separate section for confirmed casualties. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Please remove Indian claims of having shot down JF-17s and F-16

There are zero credible reports of India having shot down any Pakistani jets. All the sources cited in the article are Indian-owned and Indian-based publications with dubious credibility records. On the other hand, the Pakistani account of having downed India’s jets has been corroborated by Reuters and CNN. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Causality figures

Shouldn’t we include casualties from the Pahalgam attack in the casualty figures as the attack is what started the conflict? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

no need because it has already a wiki page of its own no need yo mix sam page contents. 61.3.175.14 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Pak awacs shot down

There has been reports of a pak awacs aircraft that has been shot down please put it under claims until further confirmation https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/operation-sindoor-india-shoots-down-pakistan-air-force-awacs-system-all-you-need-to-know-about-it-2025-05-08-989383 61.3.175.14 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

India tv news is not a credible source of information. No official statements have been made by indian military officials of any pakistani aircraft casualties 106.69.185.10 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop using indo/pak media sources.

Can we please refrain from using indian/pakistani media sources to back up your claims. Both sides have pushed disinformation, we should only stick with neutral sources. 106.69.185.10 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of article on social media

Although this page is 30/500 protected, I would like to just inform Wikipedians that this article is making rounds on various social media platforms - so do excercise caution (on this article and related articles).

For new users, please note this page is only editable by users with a minimum 30-day old account and 500 minimum account edits. You can request changes to the article by starting a new discussion and explaining your requested changes. nemul-badal (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025

Change the title of 2025 India-Pakistan Standoff to Indo-Pakistani War of 2025, this cannot be classified as a standoff or a skirmish anymore. Note that the previous wars had a formal declaration, the conflict has escalated beyond a standoff into full-scale bilateral military engagement, including missile and drone strikes, sustained artillery exchanges, airspace closures, and suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty meeting the same intensity and scope as past Indo-Pakistani wars like 1971. This should not be controversial. Opama420 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester 14.139.128.52 (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Events following 22 April

Merged See above. Soni (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

In my opinion, the events following the 22 April Pahalgam attack between India and Pakistan need to be consolidated into a single page. This page and 2025 India Pakistan border skirmishes need to be merged. The name can be discussed and decided. Pinging major editors on both pages. @Taeyab @Mithilanchalputra7 @Misopatam @XavierGreen @M Waleed @Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a merger proposal at the top. Please vote there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 That is outdated now. A new discussion might be able to show consensus better. >>> Extorc.talk 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree, currently we have 4 articles for same thing. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 07:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this, its pretty messy with 3+ separate articles on pretty much this one conflict. I was hoping that the 2025 India-Pakistan standoff article would have merged the 2025 India-Pakistan diplomatic crisis and the 2025 India-Pakistan border skirmishes articles together properly once and for all but as of now its just ended up as a worse version of the skirmishes article. Taeyab (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Taeyab Firstly. I believe this is the better version, it does higher quality coverage of the events. To me, the skirmishes article is more like a live updates page which is unacceptable.
Additionally, these articles are largely identical in their scope and that needs to be fixed. Everything a notable development happens, editors rush to make the same update on both pages. >>> Extorc.talk 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, also editors on the two separate pages seem to have different views about the information that can be added, its leading to confusion so its best to compile it into a single article Taeyab (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
IMO detailed reporting of the diplomatic actions and an overview reporting of the military action needs to be done. Have largely followed that rubric on this page. >>> Extorc.talk 11:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I stand in strong support of Extorc proposal. I hope more editors will join the discussion for clear consensus. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
After the previous discussion, I had WP:BOLD merged the pages, but it was reverted by XavierGreen. At this point, I think this is quite needed. >>> Extorc.talk 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support yes, off course, I have been saying it for 3 days. Include 2025 India–Pakistan strikes too. Shaikh Hassan মাহমুদ 16:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
For the strikes page, I believe we should let it be since there can be finer details mentioned for that on a separate page. This page is for the broader events since 22 April.@SheikhHahassanMahmud >>> Extorc.talk 16:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
However, the title should be changed to avoid sounding the same as the other two. Shaikh Hassan মাহমুদ 16:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Surely. I think Operation Sindoor might be WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 16:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support, and the merger of the other two, should be the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. Shaikh Hassan মাহমুদ 16:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I have carried out the merge. Hopefully no one reverses it now. >>> Extorc.talk 12:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger discussion

Merged. There was no formal close for this, but the articles have been merged for 24 hours without problems. I am WP:INVOLVED but this also looks like the most likely outcome of the two merge proposals here and below. Soni (talk) Soni (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The article 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes is pure WP: REDUNDANTFORK and hence should simply be merged into this article, moreover if there are sustained skirmishes then this article itself maybe adapted to cover both the skirmishes and the diplomatic crisis 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 17:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This is no longer a diplomatic crisis, it is now a military conflict. If you want to merge tthis article into that one, it would be more acceptable.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    I would infact support this article being renamed to a standoff with the skirmishes being incorporated into it, the Skirmishes article has no original content related to the Skirmishes, the first part of the skirmish subsection is about militancy rather than cross border fire, hence it falls under WP: REDUNDANTFORK and there have not yet been enough skirmishes or extraordinary violence. 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 01:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Condition between India and Pakistan are in development and in upcoming hours and dates this article will be needy. I think XavierGreen are right on that place.Misopatam (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    If some major developments come, then we could simply retitle this article to a standoff just like the 2001-2002 standoff which had both diplomatic and military events 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons by XavierGreen VirtualVagabond (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Wait - These border skirmishes are clearly a major escalation of the crisis, and have every possibility to escalate into something much more serious. That said, I think we should give it a day or two to see if this is just a one time skirmish or something larger.
IiSmxyzXX (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Weak Support – the "skirmishes" aren't anything significant that it warranted an entirely separate article. Pak-Indo skirmishes are common. This is just an obvious fork and needs to be either deleted or merged. نعم البدل (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    It seems there have been some developments (not yet reported by media) of some Indian outposts being destroyed as a result of the skirmishes, so the skirmishes are escalating. Also rumours of there being restrictions placed on Indian Media. نعم البدل (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The skirmishes are notable on their own, you would not merge the page of a battle into its overall war. Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that skirmishes and military conflicts are notable on their own, but there hasn't been any abnormal violence. نعم البدل (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
There has been scattered returned gunfire across the LoC at various points for the last ~24 hours, aerial confrontations and a captured Indian officer. Coleisforeditor (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
The captured Indian soldier is more of an incident that happened to have occurred during all of this. As for gunfire across the LoC and aerial confrontations, they're unconfirmed so far to my knowledge. نعم البدل (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
That being said, it does seem Al Jazeera has reported on the skirmishes.[1] Whether that is sufficient or not is a different debate I guess. نعم البدل (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE – While there may be content overlap, the evolving nature of the 2025 India–Pakistan skirmishes reflects a distinct and escalating military dimension that warrants independent coverage. Merging at this stage risks preemptively downplaying the seriousness of recent developments and limiting editorial flexibility as the situation unfolds. A separate article ensures clearer documentation, preserves informational integrity, and allows for more structured updates as events progress. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support such skirmishes occur often. Merge with the main article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose While past incidents have seen periodic small-scale level of border tensions, the 2025 India–Pakistan skirmishes represent a significant escalation after the 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, especially in light of credible reports pointing to renewed cross-border infiltration and Pakistan-sponsored terrorist activity. India’s response has remained measured and defensive, underscoring its commitment to regional stability despite persistent provocations. Merging this article prematurely risks downplaying the severity of these recent developments and obscuring the distinction between conventional military responses and asymmetric aggression. A standalone article ensures that these nuances are documented responsibly and with due editorial care. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Eitan Drutman (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its too soon to comment. If this situation was to dwindle into larger scale violence, then we could merge the pages into 2025 India - Pakistan standoff. >>> Extorc.talk 09:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with XavierGreen, while Waleed does bring great points, these skirmishes have evolved to a point where any major action by either party could bring this crisis to the brink of war. Lidersztwo (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Rather being separate, better keep them together. Nuts5070 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Agree, skirmishes are part of bilateral tension, along with diplomatics, military, cross-boundary terrorism and water war, all are part of it. So I suggest rename it to Indo-Pakistani relation crisis, and the previously mentioned subtopics will be added. Ku423winz1 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Till war happens (if any). The topic is so large and complex to just name it as skirmishes or diplomatic tensions, while there are cross-boundary terrorism, political outrage and water war as well. Ku423winz1 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
support as both are consequences of the attack. Maybe rename it to "Consequences to the..." or "Aftermath of the..." Sportsnut24 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Agree Eitan Drutman (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support ShaikhHahassanMahmud (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as this is a distinct and major part of the crisis and deserves its own article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support although maybe we could make it "2025 India-Pakistan conflict" if it escalates further Hind242 (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Support perhaps merge standoff with border skirmishes. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per india

india has not claimed aircraft loss please remove from per india section 61.3.175.14 (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox says wrong on Indian claims

Infobox says per India 2 aircraft shot down. Thats totally wrong. India always denied any aircraft crash. The two aircraft claims should be put on seperate Independent claims. Kelsere1 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Content lost during article merger

An important aspect during the standoff is continued firing from either sides of the LOC, escalated after Operation Sindoor. It is not covered at all in the article. This has additionally caused casualties, in addition to those by the Pahalgam attack and the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes.[1]

An entire section of events timeline was omitted during article merger. See Merged Article Section

This has been highlighted in the Indian official press release. See PIB[2] 14.139.128.52 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  1. ^ "15 civilians killed, 43 injured in Pakistan's 'barbaric' shelling in J&K's Poonch and Tangdhar after Operation Sindoor".
  2. ^ "PAKISTAN'S BID TO ESCALATE NEGATED – PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE BY INDIA". Press Information Bureau. Retrieved 8 May 2025.


Required Disambiguation at the top

At the top of the page, add

This page is about the diplomatic crisis. For military escalation resulting from this, see 2025 India–Pakistan strikes.

or a variation with similar meaning. With how both articles are named, I think they should be distinguished. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_strikes#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_8_May_2025_(2) 

laptop bird talkcontribs 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done Please start a merge request to gain consensus for this change. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
This is not a request to merge pages, but to add an about note at the top. Disambiguation of this topic is required from 2025 India-Pakistan strikes, as is done on that page. The two topics are similar and can be confused. Also, a redirect link to 2025 India-Pakistan strikes is necessary at the top of article, to relate and redirect highly related and complementary topics. 14.139.128.52 (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

14.139.128.52 (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason this needs to go to a merge request, mainly because it's not a merge, but also this is not controversial. We have a hatnote pointing to this article on the "strikes" article; we should have a reciprocal hatnote on this one pointing back, which is what this request is.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Done. I tried my own pass at the wording (copied from the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes hatnote), would appreciate another editor take a look at it to make both hatnotes similar but also in Wikipedia-voice. Soni (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks good.
But I wish to suggest that apart from diplomatic standoff, the continuous Border Skirmishes across the LOC also needs to be highlighted. The page 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes addressing it was merged into 2025 India–Pakistan standoff. Hence, this page addresses both. 14.139.128.52 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion
For 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
This page is about the diplomatic crisis and border skirmishes following the 2025 Pahalgam attack. For the escalation and airstrikes that began on 7 May 2025, see 2025 India–Pakistan strikes.
"2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes" redirects here. For other uses, see India–Pakistan border skirmishes.
For 2025 India–Pakistan strikes
This page is about the escalation and airstrikes that began on 7 May 2025. For the diplomatic crisis and border skirmishes immediately preceding this, see 2025 India–Pakistan standoff.
14.139.128.52 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian claims of Pakistan aircraft casualties

Add Indian claims of Pakistan aircraft casualties in the infobo References: Support [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Oppose [10] [11] 14.139.128.52 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral sources should be 2 aircrafts

Neutral sources should be 2 not 2 - . This also should be renamed as third party sources and not neutral sources because it says unnamed French official and unnamed Us officials. It should not be neutral sources but third party sources Kelsere1 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral source in infobox should be renamed as Third part source and should be 2

Neutral sources should be 2 not 2 - 3. This also should be renamed as third party sources and not neutral sources because it says unnamed French official and unnamed Us officials. It should not be neutral sources but third party sources Kelsere1 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC) Kelsere1 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (3)

In the Indian casualties section, it is mentioned that 2-3 aircrafts have been shot down according to Indian claims which is completely false. No such claim has been made by any Indian media or government. That claim was made by US and French officials. KN 589 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (4)

Move 2–3 aircraft shot down (including 1 Rafale fighter jet).[1][2] In the infobox from Indian Claim to Neutral Assessment or Per International Observers 14.139.128.52 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  1. ^ "French official says Pakistan downed Rafale jet as officials examine possible further losses". CNN.
  2. ^ "Exclusive: Pakistan's Chinese-made jet brought down two Indian fighter aircraft, US officials say". Reuters.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (5)

for the last time can we stop using subcontinent news and media outlets as sources to cite claims its so obvious that some of these claims are false theres no evidence or confirmation of 2 pakistani jf-17 and 1 F-16 being shot down we cannot work off nothing but claims Rehmane34 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

if we can put pakistani claims then why not indian? none of the 5 rafale's have evidence except 1 being an anonymous french official on CNN Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/1st-ever-rafale-shootdown-has-india-crashed/?amp this here refutes pakistan's claims so far. so either we keep both claims or neither Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (6)

Media has reported 2 JF-17 and 1 Pakistan F-16 shotdown https://ddnews.gov.in/en/pakistans-f-16-and-2-jf-17-jets-shot-down-by-india/ Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Lack of wider WP:RS reporting >>> Extorc.talk 12:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

India claims

according to defence minister rajnath Singh 100+ terrorists have been neutralized update the the number in the indian claim section https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/100-hardcore-terrorists-killed-in-indian-strikes-rajnath-singh-to-parties/articleshow/121010436.cms 61.3.175.14 (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a new source adding information on newer developments. Should be incorporated in the page. 14.139.128.52 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Indian armed forces also netralizes 500+ drones , according to their latest press release. CBum 6 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

India also destroyed many air bases of Pakistan yesterday and shot down two JF17 and one f16 also and captured its pilot also. And it's a india's claim please add it too. And India also destroyed many missile of Pakistan.

Chronology

In between edits, sometimes the chronology of the events gets scrambled. This seems to be what the sources suggest which we may try to reflect in the operation sindoor section

  • 6/7 May
    • Indian strikes on Pakistan, Operation Sindoor begins
  • 7 May
    • Pakistani shelling on
  • 7/8 May
    • Indian drones in Lahore and Karachi on
    • Pakistani missiles intercepted over Amritsar and other cities
    • India carries out SEAD/DEAD in cities including Lahore
  • 8 May
    • Pakistani strike attempt over Jaisalmer and Jammu intercepted

>>> Extorc.talk 12:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Mithilanchalputra7 @Taeyab @Soni to watch out. >>> Extorc.talk 12:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Made some changes to the timeline as suggested. I’ve restructured the chronology a bit for May the 7th. The chronology of the 8th appears to be fine. also some disambiguations and references cleaned up Taeyab (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No credible independent source of F-16 being shot down

There is no credible evidence by any international media outlets like rotisser or IG 0 that make it evident that India had shot down Pakistan's F-16s or JF-17s just like how the Rafael being shot down was discarded due to lack of evidence at that time few days ago I believe that this should also be set aside till independent investigations or news sources. Adoduda (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Wikipedia's content policy does not require third-party international verification for every national military claim before it is noted in an article — especially when such claims are properly attributed and clearly marked as disputed.
Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV, claims made by state media or official national sources are routinely included in conflict articles, even if no international body has confirmed them. This applies both ways.  abhilashkrishn talk 15:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The Rafale is now confirmed by reliable neutral sources like french intelligentsia and US military officials 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
There is seperate section for Neutral sources. In Wikipedia’s conflict articles, claims made by official national sources or state media are included when properly attributed — even if no neutral international body has yet confirmed them. This is standard practice per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV and the claims are as per India.  abhilashkrishn talk 15:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (8)

2 JF 17 Fighter Jets destroyed after a retaliatory attack by India admitted by Pakistan 

Government 2405:201:8010:32EE:4F4E:5984:E66D:7556 (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Dispute Resolution

Hello all,

I’ve requested formal dispute resolution at DRN regarding the inclusion of India's claimed shootdown reports.

All editors are welcome to participate in the DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2025 India–Pakistan standoff

Thanks.  abhilashkrishn talk 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


User:Abhilashkrishn pushing POV with unverified claims and issuing bad-faith warnings

I am raising a serious concern about User:Abhilashkrishn’s repeated and disruptive editing on the 2025 India–Pakistan standoff article.

He has been consistently inserting speculative, unconfirmed military claims — such as Pakistan jets being shot down — without any official confirmation from India’s Ministry of Defence or Ministry of External Affairs. He relies on vague DD News reports that cite unnamed “sources” to justify these additions. That is not official confirmation and it clearly violates Wikipedia's core policies: WP:V, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:NPOV.

To be absolutely clear: DD News is a state broadcaster, but if it does not cite official government statements and instead refers to anonymous sources, it does not qualify as a verified claim — especially for serious military actions like airstrikes or shoot-downs. This is a textbook example of misusing WP:RS and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

I made a single revert to restore neutrality and clearly explained my reasoning on the Talk page. Instead of engaging constructively, he came to my user talk page to issue a misleading “edit war” warning, even though I only reverted once and he had reverted me first. He also threatened me with a block and tried to frame me as the aggressor — while continuing to insert speculative, one-sided claims into the article.

This is bad-faith editing and intimidation. It shows a clear pattern: reverting repeatedly to insert nationalistic content, misusing attribution to bypass verification, and warning off other editors to discourage dissent.

This is no longer just a content dispute — it is a clear case of POV-pushing combined with bullying tactics.

I am calling for the following:

1. Admin review of this editor’s behavior

2. Restoration of neutrality and strict sourcing policy to the article

3. Removal of any military claims not directly confirmed by official government press statements

4. Clarification that vague DD News "sources" do not meet the bar for WP:VERIFY or WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims

Wikipedia is not a scoreboard or propaganda outlet. If this continues, I will escalate to dispute resolution noticeboards or request page protection.

Let’s protect the neutrality and credibility of Wikipedia and prevent further abuse of the editing process.

 Golgooo talk 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Abhilashkrishn is now repeatedly reverting to include claims not officially confirmed by India’s Defence or External Affairs Ministry, based solely on DD News citing unnamed "sources." This is not sufficient under WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:VERIFY for serious military claims like shoot-downs. He is edit-warring to support one side’s narrative while accusing others of edit-warring for reverting once to restore neutrality. I’m requesting admin attention if this continues. Golgooo (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I understand your concerns regarding the reliability of sources. However, according to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:VERIFY, significant claims reported by reliable sources, including DD News and others, can be included when they are widely reported.
I’ve been cautious in my edits and have consistently followed the neutrality (WP:NPOV) policy, ensuring that both sides' claims are represented fairly. I believe continued dialogue on the Talk page is the best way forward, as WP:TALK encourages collaboration and consensus-building.
I understand that we may have differing views on this issue, but I hope we can resolve it through constructive discussion and consensus.  abhilashkrishn talk 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s neutrality (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V), and exceptional claims (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) guidelines. I’d like to clarify a few points:
DD News as a source: While DD News is a state broadcaster, it remains a reliable source in India. Many credible outlets have reported similar claims, which aligns with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
On military claims: Wikipedia allows inclusion of claims reported by reliable sources even without official confirmation (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), as long as the claims are significant and widely covered.
On edit-warring: I encourage us to continue this discussion on this Talk page to reach a consensus. Repeated removal of sourced material without discussion may not be the best approach.
On neutrality: My goal is to maintain a balanced perspective. Both India and Pakistan’s claims should be represented to ensure neutrality (WP:NPOV).
I am happy to continue this conversation and work together to ensure the article remains accurate and neutral.
Best regards,  abhilashkrishn talk 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate your recent tone, but I must firmly address several contradictions in your actions:
You claim to support discussion, yet when I initially reverted your speculative addition and posted a clear explanation on the Talk page, you did not respond constructively. Instead, you went directly to my user Talk page and issued an edit-war warning — despite the fact that you had reverted first and I had only reverted once. This was not a good-faith approach and came off as a clear attempt to intimidate me.
Let me be very clear:
DD News citing unnamed “sources” is not equivalent to official government confirmation — especially for serious military claims. WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims, and unnamed government “sources” do not meet that bar.
You cannot selectively cite “widely reported” when many of the reports are repeating the same speculative, unattributed claim. That does not make them independently verified.
Your warning on my Talk page was entirely misapplied, especially since I was the one restoring a neutral version after your initial reversion — and engaging in Talk page discussion.
If you're serious about collaboration and neutrality, I expect:
You will retract the false edit-war warning from my Talk page, as it was unwarranted and falsely portrays me as disruptive.
You will stop reverting sourced removals of speculative, unconfirmed claims unless official, on-the-record confirmations are available.
You will respect genuine neutrality — not “both-sides-ing” that allows unconfirmed nationalistic claims to sneak in under the label of “balance.”
Wikipedia is not a platform for soft propaganda masked as neutrality. If speculative military claims are added, they must meet the highest burden of proof — not just WP:RS, but WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, especially when they escalate geopolitical narratives.
I am happy to continue discussing this on the Talk page — but only if future edits are made in good faith, with respect for policies, and without intimidation tactics like misapplied warnings.
If this behavior continues — or if warnings are issued again without cause — I will not hesitate to escalate this through WP:ANI or WP:DISPUTE. Golgooo (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
You’ve stated that I issued an edit-war warning prematurely. I want to point out that my warning was not intended to intimidate but to highlight the disruptive pattern of edits. You made multiple reverts without a clear resolution on the Talk page, which falls under WP:3RR rules. You can check your talk page where I posted my stand. I reverted once after your initial reversion, but this doesn’t change the fact that the reverts were part of an ongoing edit war, which requires warning, according to Wikipedia policy. Regarding DD News and unnamed sources, I want to reiterate that WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires extraordinary sources. However, DD News is state-run and operates as a prominent media outlet that frequently covers official government-related matters. Our goal should be to maintain a neutral representation of both claims — India’s claim and Pakistan’s denial. I’m committed to presenting both perspectives in balance. The article must ensure that any claim of significant military action is clearly attributed to the source (India's claim) and that any counterclaims (Pakistan's denial) are equally noted. The issue isn't whether the claim should be included but how it is framed in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards. I fully support collaboration and constructive dialogue. My aim is to ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia’s standards and policies. I encourage a more focused and cooperative approach moving forward, avoiding edit wars or unwarranted reverts.  abhilashkrishn talk 19:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Golgooo, please note that questions of inappropriate editor behavior (i.e. point #1) are not taken up for discussion on article talk pages. If you believe that there is a serious problem, please first attempt to resolve it directly, and then present a case with illustrative WP:DIFFs at WP:ANI or WP:AE (see WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for a full explanation). signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I understand that editor behavior concerns should not be discussed directly on article talk pages. However, my primary issue is the insertion of unverified claims and reverting without consensus.
I’ve made an effort to address this on the Talk page, but the concerns remain unresolved. If this continues, I will follow the appropriate procedures and escalate the matter to WP:ANI or WP:AE with specific WP:DIFFs to ensure proper resolution.
Thanks again for your understanding. Golgooo (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Rosguill
Golgooo has reverted my edit multiple times, insisting on removing India’s claim. My edits were focused on restoring the neutrality of the article and properly attributing India’s claim though I have posted the details with Govt State media and multiple reliable sources from India.
I tried to resolve the issue by posting a message in his User Talk. I tried to resolve the issue by posting a detailed explanation on this Talk page, but the user did not engage. Instead, the user directly reverted my changes. I am seeking admin intervention to resolve this dispute constructively.    abhilashkrishn talk 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Abhilashkrishn, looking at the diffs, you seem to be more at-fault than Golgooo is. You added the text at-issue Special:Diff/1289584198, Extorc removed it in under an hour Special:Diff/1289587598. You added it again two hours later Special:Diff/1289601697, at which point Golgooo removed it after about an hour Special:Diff/1289612526. Then there's rapid-fire edit warring for two more rounds. If I was to strictly apply the letter of the law here, you crossed WP:3RR and should face a block, but I'm hoping that this can be de-escalated without blocks. At this point, what is actually important is to desist from the edit war and hash out the discussion, recognizing that the military action is also an actively developing situation. WP:NODEADLINE, take up the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Dear @Rosguill, Thank you very much for your message and guidance. While my intent was to respond to removals that I believed were improper, I now understand that continuing reverts is not the right way to handle disputes. But please check these diffs Special:Diff/1289617296 Special:Diff/1289613501 Special:Diff/1289612526 Special:Diff/1289566274 Special:Diff/1289568577 made by the same person in this article without any Talk page discussion, they simply reverted my changes without any discussion even though I created a Talk page section here to discuss the matter. Some editors are reverting without engaging here. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE, I request that we settle this through discussion. I propose that the Indian claim be included with proper attribution and without stating it as fact, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.  abhilashkrishn talk 19:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is on the editors introducing new content to establish consensus for it. The way this is supposed to work is that you add something, Golgooo removes it, then you open a discussion, and then whatever the discussion concludes is how we move forward. I suggest that actual discussion of the content at-issue take place in #Downed planes in the infobox below, as the amount of paragraphs about conduct disputes in this section are going to put off anyone else from trying to engage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Rosguill  abhilashkrishn talk 20:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Downed planes in the infobox dispute

Ok, there have been scattered attempts to discuss the question of which claims to include in the infobox regarding downed planes. I think that the discussion started by Golgooo and abhilashkrishn above quickly got derailed by conduct allegations and procedural questions, and is now long enough that it is going to put off any other editors from participating. Please discuss the question of which claims to include in the infobox here. For reference, the claims have been added by abhilashkrishn in two differrent forms, in edit 1 and edit 2. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Rosguill
Regarding the infobox claims about downed planes:
I believe that the Indian claim about downing two JF-17 and 1 F-16 should be mentioned. This is consistent with how other military claims are handled in similar Indo-Pak conflicts (see examples in 2019 Balakot airstrike and 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff articles).
I am open to phrasing such as: "India claims to have downed two JF-17 and 1 F-16, while Pakistan denies this."
This way, we avoid stating it as fact, maintain neutrality (WP:NPOV), and properly attribute the claim (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).
I also agree that only claims reported by reliable sources (WP:RS) should be included, and that we should avoid speculative or anonymous reports unless widely covered by major outlets. I welcome further input from other editors on how best to phrase this while respecting policies.  abhilashkrishn talk 20:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Standalone page?

Looks like all discussion is happening above. Soni (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Following the military escalation documented at 2025 India–Pakistan strikes, I don't see a compelling reason to keep this page: the "standoff" lasted only some weeks, and the information here is quickly going to be overwhelmed by the far more prominent military strikes. The unique material is already minimal: most of this article duplicates either the Pahalgam terrorist attack or the military conflict linked above, the diplomatic standoff belongs as background for the latter, and the material about youtube isn't enough to justify this page's existence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

#Merger discussion currently exists, but it has not been closed with consensus in either direction yet. Perhaps it needs either a BOLD closer or a quick listing at WP:CR, given how many opinions have been given already. Soni (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Soni: I read that, but that's the opposite proposal: I'm suggesting this page is redundant, rather than the other way around. I will consider a bold closure, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a functional difference between your stance and at least some other editors in that section. Since I supported the merge, I can say that it's out of a desire to have one page for 2025 India–Pakistan strikes and one effectively the merge of this page and skirmishes. I do not personally care which page is made redundant or what the final nomenclature around its title is, I just would like quicker consensus when the article is in massive flux, than the current status quo. Soni (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
it should be merged with it and renamed to Indo-Pakistani War of 2025. Opama420 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Soni Please link to where the discussion is happening. I do not see a relevant discussion "above" this close. Joe vom Titan (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I did in my comments above. If you wanted to merge this article and the skirmishes article (already happened), the discussion was Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_standoff/Archive_1#h-Merger_discussion-20250425174200. If you want to rename this article, the relevant discussion is Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_standoff#Requested_move_9_May_2025. The latter is already also discussing scope changes and further merges. Soni (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We should merge 2025 India-Pakistan strikes & 2025 India-Pakistan Standoff to Indo-Pakistani War of 2025

Looks like all discussion is happening above. Soni (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

At this point, wouldn’t it be more accurate to rename this to Indo-Pakistani war of 2025? After Drone Strikes on May 8th & shelling & firing at the Line of Control, 2025 India-Pakistan strikes and 2025 India-Pakistan Standoff should be merged & renamed to Indo-Pakistani War of 2025. Note that none of the previous wars were formally declared. This cannot be called a skirmish or a standoff anymore. Opama420 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I was in the middle of writing a comment disagreeing when I heard the Urdu language news source I was listening to refer to this as a war. If news articles are calling it war then its a war, that's typically been my standard and I believe its also the standard of Wikipedia. Adsterkk (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Soni Please link to where the discussion is happening. I do not see a relevant discussion "above" this close. Joe vom Titan (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025

Gerald Thae (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

1 BrahMos storage site destroyed[25] 1 S-400 battery destroyed[26] Several Indian Army check posts along LOC destroyed[27] Two Indian airbases hit[25] 2 Indian brigade headquarters hit[28]

This is a false claim by Pakistan, it was clearly mentioned by Foreign Secretary of India Mr. Misri during press conference around 10:30 IST 10 May 2025 that none of Brahmos and S-400 batteries were hit, this was part of Pakistan’s false narrative. I would request you to kindly confirm the inputs, 3 Rafale downed is again not confirmed. I could have started a false narrative that India nuked Islamabad and let’s say people started spreading that, you guys would have got number edits believing that it is true, but is it? Your page is showing that India suffered so much in this conflict on the basis of false information and propaganda.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025 (2)

There is a sentence missing a space after a "." That is bugging me that I'd like to fix. SnoozerMan (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what sentence you're talking about... can you point it out to me with more details? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Valorrr (lets chat) 03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (2)

To the lead, justafter it mentions the ceasefire, please add, "However, Pakistan violated the ceasefire.[1][2]" Mossadegh2 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ahuja, Aastha; Kapoor, Srishti (11 May 2025). "India Pakistan Tensions LIVE Updates: India Confirms Pak Ceasefire Violation, No Drones Spotted In Srinagar". www.ndtv.com. Retrieved 11 May 2025.
  2. ^ The Hindu Bureau (10 May 2025). "India-Pakistan ceasefire updates: Pakistan violating ceasefire understanding, says Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri". The Hindu. Retrieved 11 May 2025.
 Done The Hindu is a "generally reliable" source, so I performed your request. Lova Falk (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Operation bunyan-al-marsoos??

want to know about the operation bunyan-al-marsoos by pakistan, not mentioned in this. 116.71.177.97 (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Check this article 2025 India–Pakistan conflict 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (3)

Please add, "Pakistan had state funerals for the terrorists killed; India denied that civilians were killed.[1]" Mossadegh2 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I.e., not India Today. Cheers. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (4)

(Operation Bunyan Al Marsus) 109.255.6.33 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 10:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (5)

The sources per pakistan and India have not been verified, requesting to remove those and add after some days after clarification. 103.37.201.224 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (6)

2405:201:5003:F16D:290A:50AE:BF4E:9BF4 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (7)

Patriotumer (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

there is incorrect detail written there like pakistan voilated ceasefire but indian offical were saying"Whatever noise we all are hearing, they are primarily our AD guns and other weapons trying to engage them"so let me edit it please here is the proof https://x.com/ahmedalifayyaz/status/1921236083339125157

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan claim of shot down indian fighter jets

According to pakistani media and government they shot down 5 indian jets but indian government confirmed every jet has returned Monika santra (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we get the source? Fujimotor fan (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Indian officials give no comments of that. 9Ahmed9 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ceasefire Violation

There have been reports of drone attack again after ceasefire aggreement. Cities such as Amritsar, Jammu etc in blackout again. JDas123 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

source? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Almost all medias are covering it and CM of Kashmir confirmed the blackout and shelling on X JDas123 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

CNN as neutral???

We can't take CNN as neutral as America has given multiple weapons and jets to Pakistan , so technically it would not want to share the news of its failure. IMF gives loans to pakistan despite being a terror state . So pls dont use american sources as neutral. add them in pakistani claim. 2405:201:4001:419C:64E7:1FF:6AAE:9B60 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

BLA Issue

Pakistan’s Claim of Baloch liberation army’s hijacking of the Train Jaffar Express. And selective killing of Punjabis Started the whole conflict at first. 124.253.103.59 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (2)

The Pakistani claim of destroying S-400 was false , and confirmed by officials of Government of India in Press Breffing. Aaniisshh (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Propaganda

Paskistan run's a massive propaganda along with China to influence their Citizens and Foreign Media . In process to boost their low quality Military Equipment's. Aaniisshh (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

typical godi media follower, just look to international media 182.184.143.19 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add information from Indian Army Briefing with proofs about the whole operation

As mentioned in subject. On contrary there has been no official press briefing from pak army as usual with any proof of their activities. 134.3.175.15 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Operation bunyan ul mansoos

Why not add the massive opertion conducted by PAF 182.184.143.19 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

Please grant me permission to edit i got a new information confirmed by global media thanks.2407:AA80:126:45BE:581B:5A1B:E7C1:757F (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC) 2407:AA80:126:45BE:581B:5A1B:E7C1:757F (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

information Note: The article is under the bluelock to protect the article from vandalism and/or disruptive edits. You'll need to use WP:ERW if you need to change or add something in the article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In press conference of India clearly said that there is no loss of S 400 and brahmos misail

You show only Indian loss but there is no proof but Indian armed forces showed proper evidance about pakisthan airbases losess and so on 2409:4061:2B8D:BCF8:2F5C:1460:DD3D:42D3 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

pakisthan's 5 PAF personal kill but there is no lossess on equipment but 3 indian pilot injured but 6-7 aircraft are destroyed

is not childish? Without any proof you shown indian so many losses but with lots of proof you don't shown pakisthan losses even you wrote something about pakisthan losses yesterday but you edit it . 2409:4061:2B8D:BCF8:2F5C:1460:DD3D:42D3 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025 (2)

There is a simple grammatical error in spelling one of the terrorist's groups in abbreviation. It should be LeT for Lashkar-e-Taiba instead of LeK. Toulouse12345 (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've fixed the spelling. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In infobox its written per India 2 - 3 Rafaels shot down.

This should be put in indipendedt claims. One claim said unnamed us officials says 2 aircrafts shot down and another claim says an unnamed french official says on Rafael shot down. This is not Indian claim. Dont put Wrong things in wiki infobox. India never calaimed any of its aircraft got shot. India denies any aircraft got shot. Its should be in Indipended claims 1 to 2 aircraft shot down Samsam111 (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This. Those are just the claims by the PK government. Daseyn (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The claims of IAF Aircrafts being shot down are the claims done by PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT. No proof of Rafael down...it's all pakistani propaganda

Exact number of pakistani drones shot down

The exact number of Pakistani drones shot down by India should be added to the claims section. India's MEA has claimed to have shot down 300-400 drones. Fujimotor fan (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/May/09/around-400-drones-used-to-target-military-bases-places-of-worship-centre-on-pakistani-escalation
This is the source Fujimotor fan (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

See casualties

Its time we remove the casualties section from the infobox and add a link to a casualties section. Pakistan claimed it struck air force bases, India refuted it with time-stamped images the next day. This is a wild goose chase, cant be handled in the infobox. Pinging @Rosguill @M Waleed @Taeyab @Soni @Mithilanchalputra7 >>> Extorc.talk 07:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Map needs updating

The map needs to be updated to show Baisaran Valley (the location of the original attack), the Line of Control referenced in the article, and the location of the subsequent air strikes and missile attacks. No online media that I can find shows this. Lehasa (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan claims that India destroyed their hydro power project

https://arynews-tv.org/v/s/arynews.tv/india-attacked-neelum-jhelum-hydropower-project-dg-ispr/

Above is theSource Fujimotor fan (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

India claims

The Indian government's official press release stated that the Indian Armed Forces had neutralized the air defense system near Lahore. However, this information is currently absent from the 'Casualties and Losses' section. Additionally, India reported intercepting a large number of drones in their press release. Also, Reuters and CNN cited anonymous sources suggesting that a Rafale jet may have been downed, these claims remain unverified and appear to be based on assumptions. Notably, one of the U.S.-based articles citing this claim was authored by a journalist of Pakistani origin. Conversely, Indian news agency ANI reported that an F-16 fighter jet operated by Pakistan was shot down by the Indian Air Force and they have captured the pilot, yet this claim also does not appear in the article. These omissions raise concerns about potential bias and imbalance in the current version of the article. CBum 6 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian media has also claimed that the Indian army occupied Islamabad (Capital city of Pakistan) and the Indian Navy attacked Karachi ports. 9Ahmed9 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m referring to the official press release by the Indian government. Also what about the claims made by Pakistani media..are they considered authentic? In fact, Pakistani media is often even less reliable. Since misinformation is coming from both sides, the article should at least include the statements officially released by the Indian government and officials. CBum 6 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Which Indian official claims to have captured 2 Pakistani pilots? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The information is according to ANI, and we can expect an official press release from the Government of India soon. However, why is the rest of the information released by the Indian government not included? How is it that the article only highlights Pakistan’s claims of destroying fighters, drones, and more, while India is shown as only having killed several LeT and JeM terrorists? My point is that, at the very least, the article should mention the Indian government's official claims such as the destruction of Lahore’s air defense system, the killing of over 100 terrorists as stated by the Ministry of Defence, and the interception of several drones by Indian defense systems, which has also been reported by international media. CBum 6 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
if they can write what Pakistan is claiming then why they are not writing what india is claiming. India shot down 3 fighter jets. Two jf-17 and one f-16. And India destroyed Pakistan's 8 Air bases. And also destroyed a Chinese defense system. Please include it by being neutral. 2409:4055:1C:A68D:7BDC:1902:7B5B:33AE (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone should make this articles table more similar to this table

Template:2025 India–Pakistan conflict infobox - Wikipedia


Off course it shouldn't be identical since this articles table also counts losses pre-May 7th D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Damage to airbases

the missile strikes done on airbases need to be added as well,

pakistan's airbases have unclear reports however rahim yar khan base has taken alot of damage with " a crater in the middle of the runway making it unusable" according to indian sources but pakistan sources say there has been no damage. [2]

while indias bases have suffered minimal damage as we can see from the proof of MEA briefing where udhampur base was almost undamaged, however it has killed a medical assistant in the udhampur base.[3][4] 

CAbhiN (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Give source 9Ahmed9 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
sorry about that, added source CAbhiN (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "State funerals for terrorists in Pakistan: India rejects 'civilians killed' charge". India Today. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 11 May 2025.
  2. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/operation-sindoor-exclusive-visuals-show-paks-rahim-yar-khan-airbase-crippled-after-indias-strike-2722754-2025-05-10
  3. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/udhampur-pathankot-bathinda-attacked-by-pakistan-indias-special-briefing-8377711
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbQZrJI4aWU

Add pakistani drones as well

if we are talking about the downing of harop drones, please also add the downing off 400 turkish drones according to india in its MEA briefing [1] CAbhiN (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

where is the source? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
sorry i added them CAbhiN (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistan-launched-300-400-turkish-drones-across-western-border-pak-ad-radar-hit-in-indian-retaliation/article69558073.ece

Request to include Indian claims regarding the 2025 India-Pakistan standoff

Proposed Addition:

During the 2025 India-Pakistan standoff, the Indian military claimed to have shot down three Pakistani aircraft, including an F-16 and two Chinese-made JF-17 Thunder jets. Indian officials stated that the engagement occurred in contested airspace, though Pakistan denied the loss of any F-16s. Additionally, India reported recovering an intact Chinese PL-15 missile within its territory, which was allegedly fired by a Pakistani aircraft. The missile was found undamaged, raising questions about its deployment in the conflict.

Sources :

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-downs-pakistan-f-16-jammu-attacks-drone-missiles-pahalgam-op-sindoor-2721810-2025-05-08

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/fact-check-did-pakistan-lose-2-jf-17-thunders/

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/pakistans-fighter-jet-f-16-shot-down-after-pakistan-launches-attack-on-jammu-reports-11746721122723.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pakistani-air-force-jet-shot-down-in-pathankot-by-indian-air-defence-sources/articleshow/121009195.cms?from=mdr

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/near-intact-chinas-pl-15-bvr-missile-recovered/

https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/on-camera-unexploded-china-made-pl-15-missile-fired-by-pakistan-found-in-punjabs-hoshiarpur-watch

https://www.twz.com/air/parts-of-a-pakistani-pl-15e-air-to-air-missile-came-down-relatively-intact-in-india-after-air-battle#:~:text=In%20these%20exchanges%2C%20parts%20of,region%20with%20significant%20portions%20intact.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-made-pl-15-air-232817524.html

Neutrality Note: The addition should clearly attribute claims to Indian sources and balance with Pakistani and independent assessments if available. Mohantyagi22 (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The Pakistani claim refers to the claim made by Pakistani government rather than Pakistani media sources, indian government or officials have not acknowledged a single one of Pakistani aircraft losses, moreover these claims by indian media have been previously removed due to these reasons 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
They just recently did. CBum 6 (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Provide sources regarding official confirmation by India 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 14:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Downed planes

Moved from Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes#Downed_planes

@King Ayan Das: – you must know that india is claiming that it shot down PAF jets but still no proof is provided and Pakistan has provided proof of each and every downed plane of IAF including 3 raffale jets and 1 SU-30MKI and 1 Mig-29. pakistan armed forces launched a huge attack on India with massive barrage of rockets destroying more than 26 military installations of Indian armed forces including the S-400 defence system which is of great significance as it cost around 1.5 billion US dollars. A leading European defense analysis platform, Bulgarian Military Review, has declared the destruction of India's Russian-made S-400 air defense system as the most significant event of the recent Pakistan-India conflict. provide all the details (UTC)

Also The Hindu had momentarily uploaded an article claiming 3 Indian fighter jets were shot down in Kashmir, but was taken down soon after. And published another article citing their was no shot down of any IAF aircraftsTheres a difference between a crash and shot down. The Hindu report state it was a crash but independent researches have identified it as an external fuel tank rather. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 13:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Don't make a conclusion just after seeing the headline. Read the entire article first. And this article is about the skirmish between India and Pakistan, not for crashes near the Indo-Pak border. King Ayan Das (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Mithilanchalputra7: Yes and that's exactly what I wrote, I called it a crash - whatever the Indian army claims it to be. Now whether you think it's better to dub it down as a crash or whether they were shot down, the fact is India has a lost minimum of 2 aircraft - as per NYT report. That's the important bit. Several reliable sources have been removed for absolutely no reason.
@King Ayan Das: what article are you talking about? I'm talking about the recent NYT article, which stated that they have confirmed that India has lost at least 2 aircraft.
These sources are more than reliable, and fine as per WP:RS so I fail to see why they're [NYT and Reuters are] being removed. نعم البدل (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes it's correct! 2409:4055:1C:A68D:8361:72D4:B6D4:4736 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Which proves sir ? Can you please provide the proof . Don't say that you are talking about the Video game photage your joker ambassador shared . And The female pilot you claimed to capture is still working on the Indian Air base and many media persons talked to her. 2402:8100:26C9:527E:8015:58FF:FE62:5BB8 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@نعم البدل There has been no reliable reporting on a confirmed downing of a plane in these skirmishes. JF17 downing is being reported by Low Quality sources.
"Pakistan claims it downed for 4 fighter jets and one drone, which would correlate quite well." - correlating material like this is called WP:SYNTH
"Who's else planes are they going to be?"" Whoever's they may be, calling them from either side without WP:RS vouching for it is WP:OR. >>> Extorc.talk 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Totally agree King Ayan Das (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc and King Ayan Das::
  • There has been no reliable reporting on a confirmed downing of a plane in these skirmishes - Carefully read my previous reply. I didn't write "downed", I said crashed - regardless of whatever caused the crash, the Indian Army has lost a minimum of 2 aircraft. NYT - international media has confirmed that.
  • There's also rumours that the French makers of the Rafel have also confirmed that a Rafel was 'lost' - I will be giving a source when it becomes mainstream. But the matter of the fact is, NYT is a reliable source, and there is no reason why that can't be used here.
  • correlating material like this is called WP:SYNTH - Except, I mentioned that as context, not as proof.
  • On the other hand RELIABLE sources are being removed for no good reason. نعم البدل (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Whether as context, or as proof. Just because we have two reports, we cannot contextualize them and cook things up. As for loss of Rafale, let confirmations come. Add it to the page all you want after that. >>> Extorc.talk 19:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc: The NYT source IS a confirmation that the Indian Army has suffered casualties and has lost a minimum of 2 aircraft.
You need tell me how it goes against WP:RS that you deem it unreliable. نعم البدل (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Link it here please. >>> Extorc.talk 19:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc: India Strikes Pakistan but Is Said to Have Lost Aircraft (NYT)
  • At least two aircraft were said to have gone down in India and the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir, according to three officials, local news reports, and accounts of witnesses who had seen the debris of two.
  • One Indian official confirmed the crash of three aircraft, but cautioned that the reasons were not clear. Two other Indian security officials confirmed reports that some Indian aircraft had gone down, but would not elaborate on the details. They all spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of military action. نعم البدل (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I initially wrote 2, so that it wouldn't be disputed. However now that it's being discussed. It should be 3 aircraft crashed, now that NYT has confirmed it.نعم البدل (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
NYT- is it neutral? 43.231.242.73 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc: French official says Pakistan downed Rafale jet as officials examine possible further losses (CNN)
  • A high-ranking French intelligence official told CNN today that one Rafale fighter jet operated by the Indian Air Force was downed by Pakistan, in what would mark the first time that one of the sophisticated French-made warplanes has been lost in combat.
  • The French official told CNN that French authorities were looking into whether more than one Rafale jets were shot down by Pakistan overnight. نعم البدل (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Unclear of who is the high ranking official and source mentioned that it is not officially confirmed by the French military, with ambiguity. To support the claim, multiple independent sources needed. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 02:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Mithilanchalputra7: Not an argument. The reference doesn't have to clarify the source, especially if the reference is a Reliable Source, and bearing in mind the reference clarifies that the conditions of the reporting was protected anonymity. And I have, in fact, given you multiple sources. One that says that at least one Rafel was shot down, and that India has lost at least 3 aircraft. نعم البدل (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
In addition to my previous links. There is another Reuters link: Exclusive: Pakistan's Chinese-made jet brought down two Indian fighter aircraft, US officials say:
  • One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was high confidence that Pakistan had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets - bringing down at least two. نعم البدل (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Both officials said Pakistan's F-16 aircraft, made by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab, were not used in the shootdown.
  • While Reuters reported on Wednesday that three Indian planes went down, citing local government officials in India, this marks the first Western confirmation that Pakistan's Chinese-made jets were used in the shootdowns.
For me that's more that sufficient to say that a minimum of two jets were downed, if not 3. نعم البدل (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
If a so-called U.S. official said that, does it automatically make the news accurate? That doesn't even make sense, the entire article is based on assumptions. Also, what role does the U.S. have in an India-Pakistan conflict? It's better to wait for official confirmation from French authorities. CBum 6 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@CBum 6: When several WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, which include sources of US officials and French officials, verify Pakistani officials claims that several Indian aircraft have been downed, as per the given references by Reuters and CNN, then it probably is warranted as neutral claims in the infobox. That's 3 sides saying Indian jets have been downed by Pakistan. نعم البدل (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
What if the French authorities later deny this and say that no anonymous officers made such a statement, would the claim then be rejected or remove from here, and would CNN and Reuters be considered unreliable? CBum 6 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
also recently the government of India did a press release and said that they intercepted more than 500 drones. This has to be added in the casualty and loss section. CBum 6 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
It's possible they are all refering each other. Many times they do. Also it's odd how no "neutral source" is mentioned for the losses from Pakistan. Nathularog (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Not true. Pakistan has admitted to two JF-17 being hit. https://www.youtube.com/live/REvgPCQL2b8?si=C_y41RCDvyO3Tenb 134.65.36.36 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The video is AI generated Counteringdisinfo (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Claims of India must be added

india claim to have shot down 2 jf 17 and 2 f16 and an 2 awacs add it other this wiki page can't be called neutral 61.3.175.14 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agreed. 2409:4055:1C:A68D:8361:72D4:B6D4:4736 (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
yes so true bro. It's hard to find the truth when lots of fake propaganda is roming all around 2409:40C1:4B:9B4B:4396:2EFB:9F15:4591 (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Please provide WP:reliable sources, so we can add this information for you! Lova Falk (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
All the information was given by Higher Officials of Indian Armed Forces during the Press Breffing in New Delhi on 11 May 2025. Aaniisshh (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Aaniisshh, with sources we mean WP:reliable sources - in this case, reliable newspapers who report about this. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
did pakistan provided any reliable sources. There are some articles which states unknown sources from US and France for Pakistan claims. If it is not verified please delete the section Antony arsenal (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Antony arsenal Please state specifically which sentences have "unknown sources", so I can see if they should be deleted, or get a {{citation needed}} tag. Lova Falk (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

India Goverment claims shot down of Pakistan jets

The Indian government state Media DD News reported the Indian Air Force has shot down a Pakistan Air Force F-16 and two JF-17 aircraft after Pakistan attempted to strike multiple locations in Jammu and Punjab as per India Government sources Link. Similarly multiple media reports the same - Economic Times, NDTV, India TV, India Today. Hence we need to add India's claim on the section "Per India"  abhilashkrishn talk 13:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If the Indian Air Force or Ministry of Defence actually shot down an F-16 and two JF-17s, why wasn’t it mentioned in their official press briefings—especially when they publicly detailed alleged missile and drone attacks from Pakistan? The omission is telling. Media outlets repeating anonymous "government sources" is not a substitute for direct, on-record confirmation. Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, India’s claim can be noted, but not stated as fact—especially when Pakistan denies any losses. Stop pushing speculation as established reality. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for national narratives. Golgooo (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
In this case, there’s an important distinction: India's state broadcaster DD News, which is government-run, has reported the claims about Pakistani jets being shot down. Under Wikipedia's sourcing policy, official state media like DD News is generally treated as reflecting the government’s position — especially in matters of national security and military operations. This counts as attributable to the Indian government, even if not repeated in a Defense Ministry press release.
Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RS, such claims can be included with proper attribution. As you said, India’s claim can be noted but not stated as fact — and that is exactly what is being done by phrasing it as "According to Indian media reports" or "According to India's state broadcaster DD News." It’s not being pushed as established reality but reported as India’s version of events.
Wikipedia articles on conflicts (including past India–Pakistan incidents) routinely include government claims from state media while also including the opposing side's denials for balance — per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Removing only India’s claim while allowing Pakistan's denial would itself risk a neutrality imbalance.  abhilashkrishn talk 13:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
You’re seriously suggesting that the downing of multiple Pakistani fighter jets — an act of war and a significant military victory — was so unimportant that it was never announced in any official press briefing by the Indian Ministry of Defence or MEA, yet somehow it still qualifies as confirmed because a state-run broadcaster reported it secondhand via “sources”? That’s not how credibility or WP:RS works when dealing with extraordinary claims of wartime action.
State media ≠ official government confirmation. DD News reporting unnamed “sources” is not equivalent to a government press release or official statement. You’re stretching WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RS beyond reason by pretending that a report about unnamed officials is the same as a formal declaration. If this shootdown actually happened, it would’ve been front and center in the Indian MOD’s official communication — the same way they announced missile and drone attacks. But it wasn’t. That omission is glaring.
Under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, extraordinary claims (like the downing of three jets) require exceptional sources. Hearsay via state media quoting anonymous officials does not meet that threshold. It’s especially weak when Pakistan has denied losing any aircraft and no independent evidence has emerged. So no — you don’t get to elevate media gossip to the level of official record just because it suits one side’s narrative.
This is not about removing India’s claim — it’s about accurately attributing it as an unconfirmed claim and not subtly presenting it as fact. And Pakistan’s denial must be presented alongside with equal weight to maintain WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Anything less is just nationalist narrative laundering through editorial sleight of hand. Golgooo (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:RS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL in this context. The “Per India” section specifically reflects claims made by India, and sources like DD News, a prominent state-run broadcaster, are credible for presenting such claims, even if an official government press release is absent. As per WP:VERIFY, sources like DD News are legitimate when reporting on significant events, especially when corroborated by other major outlets. As per WP:RS, news organizations like DD News play a crucial role in reporting current events. In the context of military actions, credible sources reporting India’s claims about downing fighter jets align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for reporting major claims. This is especially true when multiple sources report similar information, even if not directly from government statements. Additionally, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV emphasizes the importance of attributing claims correctly and transparently, while WP:NPOV mandates that both India’s claims and Pakistan’s denials be presented with equal weight.
Regarding your concerns about sensationalism, the article should maintain neutrality, and it is not about presenting media reports as facts but clearly indicating the sources. Disregarding credible media reports that cover significant events like military losses would violate WP:NPOV by skewing the article toward one side.  abhilashkrishn talk 19:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
if they can write what Pakistan is claiming then why they are not writing what india is claiming. India shot down 3 fighter jets. Two jf-17 and one f-16. And India destroyed Pakistan's 8 Air bases. And also destroyed a Chinese defense system. Please include it by being neutral. 2409:4055:1C:A68D:7BDC:1902:7B5B:33AE (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The government of India has not given any details on the supposed “planes”. Your military spokesperson claimed that they don’t know how many, where, and what type of “planes” they downed. This is impossible given modern technology. They are more likely talking about advanced UAVs and buying time before they need to disclose the damages they’ve sustained. Furthermore, nobody in India has given any proof for shooting down two JF-17 and one F-16. Moreover, no foreign officials or military experts have been able to verify any claim. 110.39.194.202 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No "neutral sources" for Pakistan's losses?

Is there no "neutral sources" for losses of Pakistan?

Also it doesn't make sense to include some articles as "neutral sources" just on the basis of random unnamed "US official" and "French Official" Nathularog (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Multiple Pakistan air bases and an important pakistan strategic base was attacked. Why these neutral claims gets deleted everytime. Antony arsenal (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Nathularog, just because you don't think it makes sense doesn't mean a thing, dear. Add neutral party sources for Pakistan's losses or are you a bot as well.

The term neutral sources is confusing it should be third party sources.
There is no data of any casualties on Pakistan side from third parties so far. Fujimotor fan (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
True. It should be named "Third Party Sources."
"Neutral Source" label gives it a credibility which it doesn't really deserve. Nathularog (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes. "Third-party sources" is the appropriate term here. Cortador (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025

US advisory to do not travel to Pakistan.

3 Pakistan Jets, including 2 JK 17 has shot down. 60.254.105.24 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What's the source? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Lie no confirmation 202.166.160.226 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral sources infobox wrong

In infobox neutral sources says 3 aircraft crashed not shot down. This should be changed. other two sources unnamed persons claims 1 to 2 shot down. Kelsere1 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/what-is-u-s-medias-hidden-agenda-to-declare-pak-shot-down-rafale/?amp TPGOK (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
EurAsian Times is a glorified Indian blog —- not a credible news source. This article will only entertain unbiased, credible news sources. 110.39.194.202 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
read all the reference there 9Ahmed9 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Why neutral (wrong info) Box only added on Indian Side?

Is there no neutral source which tells about Pakistan??? Why neutral box added only in India Side. Are you paid to show losses on only Indian side to through neutral sources??? My request is don’t mention anything in summary boxes till everything is confirmed. I know you are following some big media houses from America but are you 100% sure they always publish correct information??? 2405:201:3022:600A:A47F:5156:9C20:10C9 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by common users and figures add on the bases of source 9Ahmed9 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
If you know any neutral sources that have provided additional information (not mentioned on the infobox yet), then you can mention it here. Orientls (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Saw you got some neutral sources.
Hope you will update information from Indian press briefing along with satellite images as proofs.And also another country, whose military general attended funeral of militants, has also did press briefing, hope you add their’s as well specially that picture of funeral which clearly signifies their governments supports terrorist organisation and activities. If you want I can post that picture here.
Incomplete information was included in your page which is giving a false perception of scenario. Hope you will try to be unbiased.
Thanks, Animesh3007 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
If international media or foreign officials verify any of these claims, then this article will be updated. This article is only from 3 rd party sources.110.39.194.202 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi,
Whoever you are and wherever you live, i don’t know even i don’t want to know. My country is my family and if were spreading misinformation about my country, You are ignorant. Animesh3007 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah 100% sure 9Ahmed9 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

Pakistan downed Indias 6 fighter Jets including 3 rafale jets, 2 SU-30, 1 Mig-29. pakistan attacked on more than 26 military installations of India on 10 may 2025, following are confirmed targeted places of india

Beas: A BrahMos missile storage facility was successfully hit and destroyed.

Udhampur: Air Defence systems were struck and completely destroyed. The Udhampur Air Base sustained heavy structural damage.

Pathankot: The military airfield was hit in a precision missile attack.

Jalandhar: The Jalandhar Airbase was struck in ongoing operations.

Gujarat: Multiple air bases and military installations were targeted.

Delhi region: A missile was reportedly intercepted near Hisar. Delhi is being closely monitored as a potential future target.

Rajasthan: Key military installations were struck, with damage assessments ongoing.

Srinagar: The airbase in Srinagar was targeted; initial reports confirm at least 20 Indian military casualties.

Chandigarh: A major weapons depot was hit and neutralised, according to confirmed intelligence sources.

Adampur Air Base: S-400 air defence system has been destroyed by Pakistan.

Sirsa: The Airfield in the Sirsa city has also been hit.

Uri: Indian Army Brigade Headquarters and supply depot has been hit in Uri.

Dehrangyari: Indian Artillery Position has been hit in Dehrangyari.

Rajouri: Military intelligence training facility in Rajouri destroyed.

Halwara: The Halwara Air Force Station has also been hit.

LOC: Several Indian posts along the Line of Control (LoC) have been hit.

IIOJK: Indian intel centre in IIOJK has been hit.

Bathinda Airfield was hit as well

this response was given when India attacked Pakistan's 3 bases: Nur Khan, Murid, and Shorkot bases targeted with air-launched missiles. from 6 may to 10 May, Pakistan destroyed 84 drones of Indian military. India is also claiming that it downed 12 Pakistani drones. indian claims are not solid as they are not having any wreckage of drones and planes they are claiming and Pakistan gave every proof of destroyed Indian bases, airfields and fighter jets. Mfggilani (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025 (3)

Right below "Retrieved 11 May 2025.", there is a HTML tag for </ref> in casualties and losses, right column. Kindly remove or change it please. Toulouse12345 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Damage to Pakistani aircraft

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistans-military-admits-one-of-its-aircraft-suffered-minor-damage-in-confrontation-with-india/article69566276.ece

As per this source, Pakistan has admitted that one of its aircrafts was damaged. Perhaps this should be included as well. Withmoralcare (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The damaged aircraft was in a hangar in PAF Shahbaz. If it’s included, make sure this detail is also included.110.39.194.202 (talk) 110.39.194.202 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Did they specify this in the press briefing? If so, it should certainly be included. I wasn't able to notice this information in the articles I read. Withmoralcare (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Proofs of India strike

India has provided proofs on strike but pakistan did not provide any proof of their strike on India 27.59.60.180 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan has provided proof. It’s in the DG ISPR briefing. Besides, I think we all need to wait a few more days for the details to become clearer. New evidence surfaces with every passing day. 110.39.194.202 (talk) 110.39.194.202 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Claims

Where is the claim of India damaging 11 airbases? CBum 6 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so India ever claimed to have destroyed 6 air bases but the bases which were destroyed by India have been mentioned, and their supportive evidence has also been provided by the Indian Government and the Indian Armed Forces. Kushx ls (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I meant to say 11 air bases. Kushx ls (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Please your source too, so they can add that 9Ahmed9 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025 (4)

"Add in Pakistan claims: two jf17 fighters jets lost claimed by Pakistan army representative in his press briefing" 2409:40C0:6C:F1F7:80EF:C3FF:FE7B:F89B (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost 9 pakistani airbases got destroyed. This includes third party sources and chinese satelite images.

https://www.businesstoday.in/amp/india/story/show-the-world-your-airbases-if-nothing-was-hit-sushant-sareen-challenges-pakistan-475838-2025-05-11

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-concedes-indian-missile-strikes-destroyed-rahim-yar-khan-airbase-killed-squadron-leader-4-others-in-sindh/articleshow/121088302.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/satellite-images-confirm-damage-pakistani-military-bases-2723275-2025-05-12

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/satellite-images-show-damage-india-wrought-on-pakistan-military-101747018509420.html

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-india-releases-videos-showing-massive-damage-to-pakistan-military-bases-8393776

https://www.newsx.com/india/bholari-to-sargodha-experts-share-visual-proof-of-indias-precision-strikes-on-pakistan-air-bases/

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/show-the-world-your-airbases-if-nothing-was-hit-sushant-sareen-challenges-pakistan-475838-2025-05-11

Third party sources

https://www.newsweek.com/satellite-images-damage-pakistan-air-base-nur-khan-india-strike-2070833


https://www.ap7am.com/en/100751/satellite-evidence-india-destroyed-15-terrorist-camps-including-let-headquarter

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.au/osint-expert-reveal-with-proof-indias-operation-sindoor-crippled-key-pakistani-military-bases/ Kelsere1 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost all these refrences are from Indian websites, can't be written in neutral/3rd party section. 9Ahmed9 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1290863829"