Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

RfC

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

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

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

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

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

• Instead of citing the actual source of the information, which is an Indian pro-Hindutva fake news source [1] you are citing some translated article on "directus.gr" in order to evade the concerns about horrible reputation of Indian media. Be careful and stop finding ways to deceive editors with this waste of time RfC. Wareon (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 - Wareon and Rightmostdoor6, there's no need for a heated exchange of arguments. Remember, assume good faith. Tytleman is also quoted by France 24, so it was unnecessary to paint anything and anybody under Hindutva media, if anyone can find more sources for debunked airforce losses then it would be easier to go with option 2. |govind| (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• You haven't described why you are supporting faulty option 1. France 24 is a state-owned outlet, thus not reliable for the topic. Orientls (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  So does BBC and DW. I don't get your point. Can you state why France 24 is not reliable? |govind| (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Option 1. As of now, most independent analysts state that there was at least 1 loss of aircraft. As a side note, I don't think we should take "unnamed officials" to be a serious source, there has been so much misinformation surrounding this, we should have a higher standard for what is truth. Plumeater2 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Speedy close This RFC is premature, having been created within a few weeks of the conflict's culmination. More research and evidence are still emerging. Just yesterday (28 May), a source [] was published stating Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes. We currently do not have the option of four—what are we going to do after this RFC ends? Are we going to implement its prematurely decided result and then initiate another RFC with an option of four fighter jets down? I request that this RFC be closed and that the results from the latest source, which reports the updated figure of four jets shot down, be included in the infobox.

References

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, third-party RS clearly confirm four crashes (three in Kashmir and 1 in Punjab separately). It's laughable how Option 2 is being pushed here when even Indian Chief of Defence Staff has admitted losses. JayFT047 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep option 2 is clearly now moot, and should be struck. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As much as I was initially on board with the same approach, I no longer think we need to strike second option. There are multiple claims regarding the removal of this particular casualty, and we can't keep bloating the infobox by adding more sub-sections like 'Per Shehbaz Sharif', 'Per Pakistani military', 'Per third party', or anything else. I'm seeing several varying claims to go with Option 2. However, I still believe the fog of war hasn't cleared yet, thus we can keep waiting for further analysis. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown and JayFT047: I'll say this again - Clary's analysis on the 4th crash should be taken with a grain of salt, given he's not an aviation academic expert. He didn't evaluate the cited video from X, but somehow concluded because it was downed in Indian territory. You don't just repeat or conclude on what an X post claims. Had he evaluated if the debris/engine matches with any Indian jet or if the video is not old or doctored, then his analysis would have made more sense (even if he has no experience in dealing with military technicalities). Since there's no third party source to back his claim, I have no faith in his military analysis. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Srimant ROSHAN We do not question how a reliable source arrived at its conclusion. Are all the newspaper sources being cited aviation or academic experts? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We should question it, especially when it's based on an unassessed X post. Reuters and CNN are citing unknown US and French military/intelligence officials. On the other hand, unlike Clary, The Washington Post has assessed the debris in detail. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

As India now admits some losses, there is no valid reason to reject or analyze RS that have said they suffered losses. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

For the track records, we have rejected many sources because they don't come from a subject expert, this one can be very easily overlooked because it lacks any deeper analysis of an X video and the author is a geopolitical scientist. Let's keep distinguishing Indian and other party claims. Just got to know that the Pakistani military doesn't claim the Mirage crash unlike the Pakistani government and media. How are we supposed to deal with this? Ultimately clear Ib? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

By listening to people who were right, that India had lost aircraft. Rather than listening to ones who tried to deny it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Article from Neue Zürcher Zeitung

This article includes language and inherent bias which does not fall under WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

It says - "It stated that the Operation Sindoor by India "turned into a disaster".

Talk about High Drama.

This has been removed in line with WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify how any of those WPs you are citing were violated? Orientls (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

All were violated. To say that "Operation Sindoor is a disaster" is a very sweeping and huge statement. If Indian aircraft were lost, that does not equate the whole Operation to be a disaster. Geo politically, its the quite the opposite actually Foodie 377 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

ONly if we also remove glowing praise of India's operations, we do not put in puffery for either side, or we do it for both. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

News outlets reporting facts about India's operations are not "glowing praise". They are all facts backed by before and after satellite images to boot.

On the other hand, NZZ is using DRAMATIC language and a huge sweeping statement that the entire Operation "is a disaster".

I am not reverting your edit as I respect your opinion. Let us wait till more people give their opinion. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

LOL, so when its India it's "facts", when it's Pakistan it's "DRAMATIC language. Sorry no, it'd "DRAMATIC" language when it is used to describe either side's successes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

NZZ article in English is a "MACHINE TRANSLATION" from original German or Swiss article, and hence quotes from this article are likely mistranslated and lack proper context. Hence, no quotes oe strong claims should be included from NZZ per Wikipedia:Translation considerations. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you then point out what the original article is? The article is clearly under the international column of the website where other English language articles can be found. Orientls (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The cited reference for NZZ, clearly says at the end of the article:

Please note that this story was machine translated with light editing by our editorial staff.

https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Still not a valid reason to remove the content, the original article is here [2] and the fact that it has been edited to align with the original article by the staff itself means it is reliable, just because the article is in different language is also not a valid reason to remove the source. Orientls (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The content or reference was not removed. Only the direct quote was removed per WP:QUOTE, WP:CONTEXT and WP:TRANSLATION considerations, as translated quotes are likely to lack context per WP:CONTEXT. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The language used in NZZ is not of a quality of WP:RS.

Someone has again inserted this. This is not correct because we have not reached consensus. Therefore this line which states "disaster" should be removed until consensus is reached. Foodie 377 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that reffered NZZ article clearly says that it is a MACHINE TRANSLATION at the end of the article, and the language is clearly a poor translation missing proper context.

Hence, any direct quotes or strong claims should be avoided per WP:RS, WP:QUOTE, WP:TRANSLATION and WP:CONTEXT.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The original source quote from NZZ: "Für Indien wirkt die Operation «Sindoor» wie ein einziges Desaster" is accurately translated. This is not Wikipedia's voice, but a reliable source’s attributed opinion. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RS, attributed analysis like this is allowed. It's not a violation of WP:DRAMA or WP:QUOTE. Please avoid removing reliably sourced, properly attributed content. Any continued removal will be treated as disruptive editing, and this matter will be reported per WP:EW. JayFT047 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and we are not expected to be experts in German / Swiss language.

MACHINE TRANSLATION articles raise concerns per WP:RS, and also raise issues per WP:QUOTE, WP:CONTEXT and WP:TRANSLATION. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop repeating your refuted points, and read WP:BLUDGEON. Orientls (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD, and note that discussion is an essential part of Wikipedia per WP:TALK.

WP:BLUDGEON should not be misused to stop ongoing discussion.

You are claiming refuted points, based on German article on an English Wikipedia, which I think most editors would not agree upon. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Odd as I get "seems like a disaster", so where did the translation come from? Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:Verifiability, quoting a MACHINE TRANSLATED article should be avoided on contentious articles.

India-Pakistan conflicts are recognized as Contentious topics on Wikipedia, hence quotes from any MACHINE TRANSLATED articles would be in violation of WP:Verifiability on this wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Per WP:Verifiability:

When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate.

Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.

Therefore, any editor adding quotes from NZZ, which is a MACHINE TRANSLATED article would be in violation of WP:Verifiability. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven & Foodie 377 (talk), I appreciate your points in the discussion on NZZ. I want to add that

NZZ article says in the end that it is a MACHINE TRANSLATED article

As I have mentioned above, per WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources and MACHINE TRANSLATED sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Per WP:Verifiability and QUOTES must not be used from Non-English sources for Contentious articles (such as "disaster" from NZZ).

Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles.

Sadly some editors such as SherifInTown and Orientis are re-adding the NZZ quote without discussion on TALK page in violation of WP:Verifiability, WP:BRD and WP:TALK, and such quotes need to be removed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also some editors, such as JayFT047 are trying to misuse WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to justify inclusion of the NZZ quote, when WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV clearly says that any such statement must be VERIFIABLE per WP standards.

And per Per WP:Verifiability and Quoting from Non-English or MACHINE TRANSLATED sources must be avoided for Contentious articles. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Stop repeating yourself constantly and edit warring. Whether the article is machine translated or not becomes immaterial when the article itself states that it has also been edited by the editor staff to fix issues that would have come up. It has been there in the article for long and only you want to remove it. Orientls (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Orientls, You are in in violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:BRD for re-adding the NZZ quote without consensus on TALK page, and this must be mentioned on TALK page per WP:TALK.

Please note WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources and MACHINE TRANSLATED sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Per WP:Verifiability and QUOTES should not be used from Non-English sources for Contentious Wiki articles (such as India-Pakistan-Afghanistan articles).

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gotitbro and Kautilya3, Please note that some editors such as Orientls are adding quotes from MACHINE TRANSLATED non-English articles such as Swiss NZZ (Operation Sindoor by India "turned into a disaster") in violation of WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources and MACHINE TRANSLATED sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Per WP:Verifiability and QUOTES should not be used from Non-English sources for Contentious Wiki articles (such as India-Pakistan-Afghanistan articles).

The cited reference for NZZ, clearly says at the end of the article:

Please note that this story was machine translated

https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492

Some editors are re-adding the poorly translated (machine translated) quote "Operation Sindoor became a disaster for India", which is in violation of WP:Verifiability. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

We have much bigger issues in that section than Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which need to be fixed first. This was being discussed earlier (looks like it has gotten archived now).

On the point of machine translation and quotes, even if you discount the former, the choice to include quotes rather than paraphrase something is always on us. I don't see any reason why the same can't be done here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Earlier Foodie 377 had correctly raised concern on the poorly translated (Operation Sindoor by India "turned into a disaster") based on

WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which were disregarded by some editors.

As detailed above, the quote: (Operation Sindoor by India "turned into a disaster") is also in violation of WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources, and WP:Verifiability should not be disregarded. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

yes absolutely. I agree with @RogerYg. On top being a machine translated article, the article is definitely s poorly written Anti-India biased piece. Based on the rules presented by @RogerYg, it satisfies grounds for deletion. Foodie 377 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I respect your great contribution to this article. There was discussion of how there is WP:PUFFERY for both sides. I disagree and strongly reiterate that there is no puffery vis a vis Indian achievements. For example there is no single line in the article that says for example that - "INDIA HAS ACHIEVED EMPHATIC VICTORY". So why then do we need a line that says it was a "disaster for India" especially coming from an extremely biased bleeding heart source from Switzerland. Foodie 377 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No matter whether you think that the article is machine translated or not, this becomes irrelevant when the article itself noted that it has also been edited by the editor staff to fix issues that would have come up. Also, see the analysis from RUSI under the same section. It is an opinion piece. Just saying that it is useless for you to make comparisons. Orientls (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The NZZ article says its is Machine Translated:

Please note that this story was machine translated with light editing by our editorial staff.

Light editing by editorial staff does not claim in any way that translation issues are fixed.

Even if it was Human translated, using it is still in violation of WP:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Quoting from any non-English translated article should be avoided on Contentious topics on Wiki (such as India-Pakistan) as per WP:Verifiability.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here to remove. As per WP rules it clearly states that machine translated quotes cannot be used. @RogerYg and I are in favour of removing this. And only @Orientls is in favour of retaining it. So we win the vote 2 to 1. So we will proceed to remove the "disaster" line in quotes. Foodie 377 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, while we do not even need a consensus to to remove serious violation of WP:Verifiability being done repeatedly by @Orientls on a contentious article, we have reasonable consensus on not quoting from Non-English sources per WP:Verifiability, largerly agreed by me , Foodie 377 (talk) and @Gotitbro.

The latest revert [3] by @Orientls in re-adding the translated quote, without any TALK page discussion, is a violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:BRD

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't twist the consensus. It's not only @Orientls: "in favour of retaining it". It’s also clear that RogerYg continues to reiterate the same refuted arguments, despite previous responses and warnings about WP:BLUDGEON behaviour.

"WP rules it clearly states that machine translated quotes cannot be used"

You need to read the "WP rules" before asserting this, nowhere it states that non-English or machine translated sources cannot be used. And per WP:NONENG:

"If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote."

That is exactly what has been done in this case. The original source quote “Für Indien wirkt die Operation «Sindoor» wie ein einziges Desaster” has been cited, and the accompanying translation has been provided. The English version of the NZZ article also notes editorial oversight, making the source verifiable and appropriate under WP:RS and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Please refrain from repeatedly asserting disputed interpretations of policy as if they were settled fact. JayFT047 (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi JayFT047 (talk), Since you were missing from the discussion for some time, you were not mentioned in the consensus building. I apologize for the same. As you are back, you are welcome to participate in consensus building per WP:BRD and WP:TALK guidelines.

I am only providing the official Wikipedia policy, WP:Verifiability, and please read the full details below if needed.

I appreciate your knowledge of Wiki policies, but please do not misuse WP:BLUDGEON to abruptly stop an ongoing discussion, and almost bully an editor from participating in a discussion on the TALK page.

While you also provide some good reasons, I think the point you are missing is that this is not a normal Wiki page, and WP:Verifiability guidelines are stricter for Wiki Articles on CONTENTIOUS TOPICS, such India-Pakistan-Afghanistan

Please read the relevant Wikipedia policy below, which guides against the use of Non-English quotes on Contentious articles. (Also, please refrain from repeatedly misusing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where there is a relevant guideline of WP:Verifiability, as below.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

Quoting

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@RogerYg - You seem to have accidentally omitted a sentence in that paragraph of the guideline: "If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you." Having a human editor translate the quote satisfies WP:V explicitly.

@RogerYg and @Foodie 377 : of the "rules" cited above, only WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an actual guideline. WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY are essays. Even if they were guidelines, it's unclear which parts of those articles you're claiming the statement violates. CONTEXTMATTERS, for instance, is an explanation that sources should "directly support the information as it is presented", and whether the source can be trusted to be an informed speaker on the topic. In this case, NZZ is a geopolitics journal giving an assessment of a geopolitics event. The article also cites NZZ for the "raises concerns for Western military technologies" line -- if NZZ can be trusted to be a valid source for that line, it can obviously be trusted to be a valid source for the second half of the assessment.

Orientls requested at the beginning clarification on how those WPs were being violated. An explanation of that needs to cover the actual policy and advice given. I'm not seeing where any such explanation was given other than the (fatally incomplete) quote of the WP:V guideline.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact.

Thanks for your kind inputs on the issue.

I agree that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is also a valid concern for translations from Non-English articles, and I would agree to remove all the lines based on NZZ source, due to those concerns.

Meanwhile, I would like to assure you that I have not accidentally missed any sentence from the Quoting guidelines per WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources, and I will be happy to discuss each sentence of the Quoting guidelines.

In my humble view, the sentence you mentioned is moot, because the guidelines are already clear in the previous sentence with regards "contentious articles or biographies of living people".

Since this article is a contentious article according to Wikipedia policy on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topics, we have to follow the WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources in the context of contentious articles.

Hence, it is not fatally incomplete since the sentence: If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you., is not addressed for Contentious articles, while the previous sentence is clearly addressed for Contentious articles.

I think that the context of Contentious articles, helps address the main concern raised by you.

Further, I note that your User:KrytenKoro page status says that you are RETIRED from Wikipedia. (as seen on June 15, 2025)

Per WP:RETIRE, Retirement is just another way of saying that a user has permanently left Wikipedia...

a user does not intend to return; thus, unnecessary future attempts at communication can be averted.

Hence, per WP:RETIRE guidelines, I do not expect you to actively participate and take sides on contentious Wikipedia articles, and I would be fine if you do not reply to this response.

I wish you a happy retirement. Best, RogerYg (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Casualties

The most overlooked aspect of this aspect have been deaths especially of civilians. So I have been hard at work for the last day to find out the civilians killed in this conflict. The names for deaths took some time to compile but were much easier to come by for India than Pakistan, where in the latter case mostly only official numbers are available; also compounding problems with the latter are discrepancies in initial and later reports and figures where the later reports maybe confusing and adding some earlier data; also adding to the confusion is how many actually died in the Indian strikes (initial and later [if any]) sans shelling. So far I can add all the 21 names for India, for Pakistan about half (of 40) and most only from social media etc. (e.g. [4], [5]). Doing this only as a helpful reference point but also to illustrate just how much media sources and even official reports can be incongrous and hard to track even among themselves; on that note the number of injured is completely unverifiable and has absolutely no consonance in news reports or official releases, I recommend it be deleted from the infobox, already not there in the body. I will also be making some changes to the body [from RS] for casualties.

India

S.No.	Name	District (died)
1	Nargis Bano	Baramulla
2	Ashok Kumar	Jammu
3	Zakir Hussain	Jammu
4	Sukhwinder Kaur	Ludhiana
5	Amarjeet Singh	Poonch
6	Amrik Singh	Poonch
7	Balvinder Kour	Poonch
8	Maryam Khatoon	Poonch
9	Mohd Abrar	Poonch
10	Mohd Akram	Poonch
11	Qazi Mohd Iqbal	Poonch
12	Mohd Rafi	Poonch
13	Ranjeet Singh	Poonch
14	Rashida Bi	Poonch
15	Shakeela Bi	Poonch
16	Urwa Fatima	Poonch
17	Vihaan Bhargav	Poonch
18	Zain Ali	Poonch
19	Aisha Noor	Rajouri
20	Mohd Shohib	Rajouri
21	Raj Kumar Thapa	Rajouri

Pakistan

S. No.	Name	Place of Death
1	Areesha	Abbaspur (shelling)
2	Hadia	Abbaspur, Poonch (shelling)
3	Rehman Jan	Abbaspur, Poonch (shelling)
4	Aitraz Shah	Barnala (shelling)
5	Allah Log	Barnala (shelling)
6	Moon Shah	Barnala (shelling)
7	Muhammad Junaid	Barnala (shelling)
8	Nabeel	Barnala (shelling)
9	Shahmeen	Barnala (shelling)
10	Mukhtiar Leghari	Daharki Tehsil (drone)
11	Irtiza Abbas Turi	Dawarandi, Muzaffarabad (shelling)
12	Mehboob Awan	Jabbi Kasran (drone)
13	Aqsa Zubair	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
14	Hawa Bibi	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
15	Jameel Ahmed	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
16	Muhammad Zubair	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
17	Shahzad	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
18	Umar Zubair	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
19	Urwa Zubair	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
20	Uwaim Zubair	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
21	Zarqa Bibi	Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur
22	Kaneez Begum	Kotli (shelling)
23	Robila Javed	Khuiratta (shelling)
24	Abdul Malik	Markaz-e-Taiba, Muridke
25	Midasar	Markaz-e-Taiba, Muridke
26	Mohammad Alam	Markaz-e-Taiba, Muridke
27	Ihtesham Arshad	Masjid-e-Abbas, Kotli
28	Misbah Kausar	Masjid-e-Abbas, Kotli
29	Umar Musa	Masjid-e-Abbas, Kotli
30	Imam Muhammad Yaqoob	Masjid Syedna Bilal, Muzaffarabad (shelling)
31	Zimal Fatima	Muzaffarabad District (shelling)
32	Muhammad Fazil	Nakyal (shelling)
33	Ali Ahmed Butt	Neelum District (shelling)
34	Ali Haider	Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium (drone)

Masood Azhar confirmed the death of 14 at the Bahawalpur mosque (Pakistani authorities only say 13), so that is 5 unnamed, one more person was killed by a drone in Rawalpindi [edit: added this and two other civ drone death to the table] taking deaths from known places/names to 24 26; rest of the 16 14 I have no no clue where/how they occured but likely in Azad Kashmir shelling (edit: added 13 deaths from AJK). Note: I am basing this on official figures, there might be more deaths on either side. Gotitbro (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

India claims ([6]) that Midasar/Mudasir and Jameel listed above are LeT and JeM militants respectively. I will add this claim to the body. Along with the funeral controversy from The Diplomat. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Accounted for all civilian deaths in Pakistan except 1. Gotitbro (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Now moving onto the military:

India

Name	Rank	Branch	District (died)
Deepak Chingakham	Constable	Border Security Force	Jammu
Mohammed Imteyaz	Sub-Inspector	Border Security Force	Jammu
Dinesh Kumar	Lance Naik	Indian Army	Poonch
M. Murali Naik	Sepoy	Indian Army	Baramulla
Pawan Kumar	Subedar Major	Indian Army	Poonch
Sunil Kumar	Rifleman	Indian Army	Jammu
Ram Babu Singh	Sepoy	Indian Army	Jammu
Surendra Kumar Moga	Sergeant	Indian Air Force	Udhampur

Our infobox for India only lists soldiers (army), will be adding the rest.

Pakistan

Name	Rank	Branch
Abdul Rehman	Naik	Pakistan Army
Dilawar Khan	Lance Naik	Pakistan Army
Ikramullah	Lance Naik	Pakistan Army
Muhammad Adeel Akbar	Sepoy	Pakistan Army
Muhammad Naveed	Havaldar	Pakistan Army
Nisar	Sepoy	Pakistan Army
Waqar Khalid	Naik	Pakistan Army
Farooq	Corporal Technician	Pakistan Air Force
Mubashir	Senior Technician	Pakistan Air Force
Muhammad Aurangzeb	Chief Technician	Pakistan Air Force
Muhammad Ayaz	Airman	Pakistan Air Force
Najeeb Sultan	Senior Technician	Pakistan Air Force
Usman Yousuf	Squadron Leader	Pakistan Air Force

Of these 5 died at Bholari while the rest presumably in Azad Kashmir in cross-border shelling. An additional death has been reported from Sargodha airbase, let me know if we should add it in the ib, will make a mention in the body (edit: already there in the body, so was only missing from our calculations, will see about the ib but a complete removal of casualties from the ib has been suggested below which I agree with). Edit: Another death was in Lahore from a UCAV [7]. Both of these (Sargodha, Lahore) have been later tallied by the ISPR itself [8], so no issues there.

Sourcing for the military casualties were much easier to come by. I will now be making some updates for the casualties in the body and if no one object will remove the injured from the ib for the reasons I list above. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not think we need such a list. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, only made as a helpful referral to tally the casualties. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Are these from official sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The figures are official, I am just tallying publically released/avaliable names to match the figures. For military names, yes, both sides have officially released the names. Civilians, yes for India [also from media reports]; no, for Pakistan [most names are from news/social media]. Will of course only use RS material in the article; again only made the tables for reference. Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Plans of 10 May Pakistani strikes

I had recently added a paragraph about Pakistan's PM stating that they had planned strikes on India in 10 May ""morning prayers". But it was removed by @SheriffIsInTown. The reason was that more Pakistani or third-party sources were required. Unfortunately, Pakistani sources are mostly biased will not give this information and, further, Pakistani sites are not accessible in India. Also, here are no third-party source covering this. However, this is an important information said by the country's Prime Minister in Azerbaijan and the NDTV's source gave a short video of his speech. So, I think it should be added in the article. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

That would mean Bunyan-al-Marsoos was planned before the Indian strikes, interesting. Here is the full speech from Express Tribune [9]. He also makes other claims such as 4 Rafales, 1 Mig, another [unnamed] plane of total 6 were downed [9:20] (also reported here [10]), contradicting earlier claims. We will have to add this somewhere in the article, the pre-planning of the strikes also appears important. Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Did I not make it clear that Pakistani posts are NOT ACCESSIBLE in India? Let that be Facebook posts (as you gave), YouTube videos or any other social media posts, Indians can't access any of them. Further, 6 jets claim could be added under "per Pakistan". And it seems like what I wrote is not clear to you. Pakistan's PM said that they had planned to strike India on early morning on 10 May (the same day on which ceasefire or "understanding" was declared), however, the plans got derailed as India conducted pre-emptive style strikes with BrahMos (though the term "pre-emptive" was not used) even before dawn. What he said now was supposedly a another set of second wave-strikes under Bunyan-um-Marsoos which was cancelled or something. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, climb down down the ropes, no need to be abrasive here, we are all collaborating here. I was addressing the sourcing concerns raised by another user which aren't that out the ordinary (Indian source used to cite Pakistani claim) but the video is verifiable, here is another source (Turkish) for the video [11]. And let me make the timeline clear for 10 May: Indian said that Sirsa was attacked (around midnight) and directly targetted Pakistan's airbases around 2-3 am; Pakistan responded to these strikes by launching Operation Bunyan-al-Marsoos shortly after. But as PM Sharif has clarified Bunyan-al-Marsoos was anyhow already planned around fajr but was shifted earlier after the Indian strikes. Shelling and drone attacks continued throughout the day after these early morning salvos, and ceasefire was reached around 3-4 in the afternoon. Sharif is not referring to another phase of Bunyan-al-Marsoos but it's original plan for May 10th in morning.

Let me quote in full from the video:

We, on 9th and 10th night, we decided to respond in a measured fashion to Indian agression. And we had decided that at 4:30 in the morning after fajr prayers Pakistan Armed Forces, lead very ably by our Field Marshall Chief of Army Staff sitting here Syed Asim Munir, to teach a lesson to our enemy. [He is talking about Bunyan-al-Marsoos here.] But before that hour reached, India again launched missile attacks -Brahmos- and hit Pakistan's various provinces, including airport in Rawalpindi and other places. Our Chief of [Army] Staff (who is sitting here -in the- Field Marshall could you kindly stand up and I would like to introduce you to the-), he told me that "Prime minister India has again attacked." His voice was showing unshakeable confidence. He was absolutely resolved, calm. But then absolutely clear that we will have to teach our enemy a lesson of their life. And then ladies and gentlemen we attacked Indian military installations, not civilians. That is the stark comparision between us and them, they went for innocent civilians and martyred them, we went for their military installations and gave them a begitting reply.

Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. So this means Pakistan just preponed the Operation due to unexpected Indian strikes. Can this be added in the article? Aviator Jr (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Will need reliable publications that are not hailing from India or Pakistan if you really want to post such a summary. Orientls (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistani source for a Pakistani claim is OK and a timeline technicality isn't really indicative of needing a 3PARTY here (which isn't mandated either). I will be adding the 4 Rafale claim to the timeline citing Andalou, will see if I can find something better than Express Tribune but if not that in itself should be fine. Gotitbro (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, Aviator Jr saying at 06:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC) that "Pakistani sites are not accessible in India", is actually not relevant to WP:CITE. Orientls (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is it that you are always aggressive to any claim that might go against Pakistan? What I wanted to say is that if someone asks for a Pakistani source I cannot provide one due to inaccessibility to their websites. I am not here to negotiate with your aggressive, non-neutral stances. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It is alright, if you can't access a source [per Wikipedia:Verify] just ask the original editor who added it to provide a quote, context etc. And if that isn't possible ask for a different one. I have done both above, we have the whole Sharif quote above and an alternative video of the whole event which you can check. Gotitbro (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course, we have discussed about other sources and I have corrected what should be written in the article. It had been almost resolved. So why pull back and deliberately misinterpret "Pakistani sites are not accessible in India"? Why can't we just continue to add six jets claim "per Pakistan" which has be stated again and again by Reuters and The Hindu article along with "Pakistan preponed the Operation due to earlier unexpected Indian strikes" with proper sources from Sharif's speech? Aviator Jr (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aviator Jr The Pakistani claim of six jets has already been included in the infobox and the 7 May section for a couple of weeks now. Sharif is not saying anything new—Pakistan had already stated it would retaliate at a time of its choosing. He is merely saying that when India attacked the bases that night, their resolve to strike back became stronger. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Non Indo/pakistani sources are not, so why have they not reported this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree that we should look for reliable publications that do not hail from India or Pakistan. Orientls (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

However, the plan went sideways as India "once again launched a missile attack using BrahMos". Where does Sharif say that "the plan went sideways", or how can the sources imply this? This is precisely why editors keep proposing that we should not use Indian sources in articles about the Pakistan–India conflict. They misquote and misrepresent facts to align with the narratives of their government. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read my reply to @Gotitbro above. Do not unnecessarily extend or delay the discussions. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aviator Jr You did not address the misrepresentation. Gotitbro added the entire speech by Sharif—where exactly does he say that the "plan went sideways"? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by sideways, a change of plans here certainly happened at least for the time of initiating the operation. Bias is expectant of any source from an involved party in a conflict, broadcast media is already low on our RS list. We should not be having this conversation here again (RSN is where it is at and this keg shouldn't be reignited here).

Coming to the content, 6 jets isn't new, 4 Rafales is that is why Andalou reported on it. I will be adding this. The pre-planning of the Pakistani operation is also important and I think we can cite Express for that with quotes. I will see what can be done here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in his speech to suggest that a change of plan occurred. While the timing of the planned strike might be new, the DG ISPR had already stated in several press conferences following the strikes that the targets had been identified in advance and the response was pre-planned. So, there is nothing new in Sharif's speech indicating that they had planned to attack on the same morning they eventually did. He is simply recounting that since India attacked the bases that night, they proceeded with their plans and struck back. There was no indication of pulling back or rethinking the strategy—at least that's how I understand his speech. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

By change of plan, I did not mean anything fundamental only the time, the same I say in my reply with the quote above. I will be adding only the 4:30 bit [found the whole transcript of the speech here] to the timeline (this is about the timeline after all, the more exact timing and dates we can have the better). Gotitbro (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added the bit about planes and time to the timeline. The planes para got a bit bloaty and unreadable so, broke down the independent verification and moved Indian acceptance [which I moved from below in the timeline] to it as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The question though remains how we handle the Rafale claim in the infobox. The military says 3 [and 1 Mig and 1 Mirage and 1 Sukhoi] while Sharif now says 4, 1 Mig and another unnamed one. I think we can handle by this doing per Sharif and per military in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no better way to avoid this confusion. I think there has been a typo, you missed out "Rafale"s twice there. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro We are not basing this solely on Anadolu; I will need another third-party or Pakistani source for additional verification, as this could simply be a reporting error by Anadolu. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Trend.az has already been added which quotes Sharif and the rest in full. The video is also there for anyone to see and I have provided the full quote above, there is simply no margin of error here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: please self-revert here, Sharif stated what he did. RS questions were addressed, it is not a question of Anadolu or misreportage and we are not assuming things of slip of tongue for the sake of it. (Edit: Pakistani sources have themselves reported on this, added below.)

And also self-rv for Sky News that content was discussed by multiple users and there was no consensus for removal and is being actively discussed below. Unanimous decision here simply can't go. And your rationale here is simply incorrect Sky News geolocated those videos to the Markaz site, these are not random posts. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

About the removal of Shakargarh, Sarjal is located in that area [verifiable even beyond sources from this conflict but here is the Indian claim [12]]. Mehmona Joya is also a part of Kotli Loharan, verifiable even beyond sources from this conflict. And no Pakistani officials claim only one of these misfired, which is also immaterial since the misfire also happened in Mehmona. Here is Urdupoint saying exactly that: [13] (Mehmona Joya, a village near Kotli Loharan).

These are basic location facts, which aren't supporting either side, similarly mosques Abbas and Bilal I did not oppose (identified as Markaz in Indian claims) because that is what reader aid provides for.

We can be cautious of things but to remove everything under the sun fearful of any slight of POV is not something we should do. I have reverted this, you had removed these earlier as well but we should be following BRD here. Gotitbro (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

And FWIW, Pakistani sources have reported the same: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Gotitbro (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this section, along with its parent section 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Timeline, needs a thorough revamp due to PoV additions. Al Jazeera so far only mentions 8 bases, while the table extends up to 15. Azertac and ISPR claim 16 and 19, respectively. SheriffIsInTown needs to understand that combining multiple sources to extend the table is not the right approach. Furthermore, as I've already said: the dawn of 10th May begins with Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases. Even if this section needs a table, it should start with the Indian strikes. According to India, they targeted 11 bases, while independent sources [19][20] verify up to 4 and 6 bases, respectively, that were actually damaged significantly. My question is: should we move forward with independent sources and include a few key tables, or do we want to rely on Indian and Pakistani claims and add many more? Keep in mind, Pakistani claims are the most confusing of all and it lacks any third party evaluation. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  You cannot simply remove content that is supported by three sources. There is no synthesis here; a clear distinction is made above the table with the heading "Per Pakistan." Even if Al Jazeera reports eight sites, we have other sources that include those eight and additional ones. If you have an issue with the inclusion of three sources, you may consider excluding Al Jazeera and Azertac. Does the ISPR source independently support Pakistan’s claim of striking those sites? If it does, then there is no valid reason to remove the table. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't hurry to retain this PoV ridden table. The issues I find are: 1) Why should the subsection warrant (let alone begin with) scarcely reported Pakistani strikes when the dawn of the day started with Indian strikes? 2) Al Jazeera and Azertac poorly and inconsistently repeat ISPR claims, so it doesn't matter if you cite ISPR, PIB or any tertiary sources. 3) Why does the table conflate with 15 sites while sources vary all along? 4) Should we proceed with neutral verified sources instead of bizarre claims of the involved parties? Find a way to achieve WP:NPOV and cautiously move with the WP:POVPUSH. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree Foodie 377 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  We are not removing just one table—if we are removing tables, then both the May 7 and May 10 tables should be removed. Otherwise, the May 10 table is supported by the ISPR source, which lists all the sites mentioned, and the table clearly states ‘‘Per Pakistan’’. This is not POV-pushing; in fact, it is you who is POV-pushing by suggesting the removal of only one table while keeping the other. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Srimant ROSHAN: I find it odd how you want to keep the table based on Indian claims in the article yet want its Pakistani counterpart gone based on "POV concerns" when it explicitly states that it illustrates the stance of these two countries. If anything, this removal is tendentious on your part. Orientls (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's where you're wrong. I raised the concerns of NPOV because the subsection only includes Pakistani strikes, and below it's been suggested to remove all tables from the section in order to deal with this. The removal was righteous, go and revisit my rationale, Sheriff used a bunch of sources which contradicted and synthesized [21] their table, after which they fixed the issues [22]. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Srimant ROSHAN: The article lists subsections by dates, it includes two tables based on Indian claims; first one about the initial strikes and the later ones on Pakistani facilities. There is absolutely nothing that justifies keeping these two tables while removing the only one based on Pakistani claims. The table illustrates the claimed target sites by Pakistan, therefore there can be no NPOV concern here as we are clearly attributing them. You claimed they synthesised the source but one of their cited sources clearly backed their content fully, all they had to do was remove the additional sources they added since the table is based on country's claim and ISPR is part of the Pakistan's government. Orientls (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• About the recent addition of the row at the table of initially targetted sites on May 7. First, I am not opposed to it's removal entirely. Coming to the added content, Mehmona Joya was indeed the place struck. This is confirmed by this Urdupoint report here (I had cited this above), I quote: "At this time I am present in a village of Silakot where attacks have been conducted by India. ... And at this time I am present at Mehmona Joya village of Kotli Loharan. (3:00)." And you can watch the rest. The press release is merely using the larger conurbation of Kotli Loharan as a handy name. I am not sure about Sarjal, but the Pakistani release said that Shakargarh, where that village is located, was indeed hit. Finally these claims are not easily handled in tables and I am OK with a removal of the target table as well. Better handle this in the body. Gotitbro (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just because India happened to inflict more damage on the ground and some people do not like it, it does not mean we hijack and rewrite history. The May 7th Maiden Missile strikes by India table is accurate and is from WP:RS. So please stop WP:BLUDGEON and stop attempts at rewriting history.

  Also this table-warring seems juvenile. It is like "you put your table, I put mine". It does not work like that.

  WP policies and consensus direct what goes in and what does not.

  According to WP:RS, the May 7 Table of maiden missile strikes stays. There is no reason to remove it. Foodie 377 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Srimant ROSHAN doesn't explain why he removed the 10 May table. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Go up a few lines. He is explaining. But few intend to keep on edit warring. And keep on trying to bolster the failed mission Banyan um Marsoos Foodie 377 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  See the above comments, additionally paragraphs of summary in my reverts [23][24][25]. The table of 7th May is not contested, however 10th May has many contentions, it was recently added on 24th May this needs to establish consensus and solve NPOV issues. I would shift it with Indian strikes on 10th may. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Whether the table for 7 May is contested or not is irrelevant; we cannot include one table and exclude the other. It is supported by a source and presented as a Pakistani claim. The article includes numerous claims from both Pakistani and Indian sides—so why single out this table? If we were to follow that logic, we would need to remove all partisan claims from the article. Your objection, therefore, lacks merit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro The quote you just removed from WP:RS indicates that Pakistan acknowledged two shells fell in Kotli Loharan West, while India claimed that the intended targets were Sarjal and Mehmona Joyia. This implies that the two shells meant for Sarjal and Mehmona Joyia instead landed in Kotli Loharan West. Therefore, if we are stating that Pakistan acknowledges six sites were struck, the sixth site would be Kotli Loharan West—not Mehmona Joyia. In any case, I needed to make the table clearer. Quoted from the BBC source: According to the military spokesperson, two shells were fired at the village of Kotli Loharan near the Working Boundary north of Sialkot, one of which did not explode. He stated that there were no casualties in the attack. Contrary to the claims made by Pakistani officials, India says that two camps—Sarjal and Maimuna Joya—in Sialkot were targeted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have already shown above from local Pakistani media reports that the strikes did indeed hit Mehmona, it is a part of Kotli Loharan. We can use judgment here to indeed parse that the official statement is merely using the latter as a handy reference. In the same report Pakistan also says that Shakargarh was hit, the location of Sarjal, though I cannot be definitive about as no exact place is mentioned. But yeah the Kotli Loharan reference is definitively for two strikes (one claimed to be a misfire) at Mehmona (again, see the Urdupoint report on this).

  The table shouldn't be the place for tallying the claims against each other anyhow, where do we stop, do we then tally Bunyan-al-Marsoos claims and acceptance as well. This is bloat. Ultimately I am in favour of doing away with these tables. Gotitbro (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

NPOV is clear, we put both sides' claims or neither side's claims. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I say we remove both, adds nothing but bloat which has lead to needless back and forth warring rather than addressing actual content issues here with unchecked official claims, refs, duplication of content, missing info among others. Gotitbro (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it all seems a bit like puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In order to make it weighty neutral. I have added a table for the second Indian strikes on PAF bases. Discussion can go on whether the tables should exist or not. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• @SheriffIsInTown: About this, there is a reason we don't use anon sources in conflict articles especially from involved parties. We don't need to change this here either. If this is coming from the ISPR etc. themselves then we need the source to say as such or find ones that do so, we are not assuming things for them. I wasn't able to find any good source on these claims beyond this though. Let us stick to official claims and what the media reports itself independently, there is precedent for not adding anon claims. Gotitbro (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro This is not an anonymous claim; it is an official claim. "Pakistani security sources" refers to "Pakistani military sources". The source also uses the term "officials", which by definition makes it an official claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  No it is not, as it was not made publicly by a named official, as such it is unofficial (and anonymous). Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Claims of false flags and misfires on 10 May

• About the false flag attacks on 8 and 10 May. This link to the (pre-Bunyan-al-Marsoos conference) says nothing about the Amritsar strikes on 10 May. Though in this conference, he made the claim that India targetted Afghanistan, which was later rejected by the Taliban itself.
• If I am getting this right, the ISPR claims that India misfired/false flagged 4 missiles on Amritsar on the 8th and 6 again on the 9th (including Adampur). This is quite fantastic, and on the level of believability of false flag allegations for the Parliament attack, 26/11, Pulwama, Pahalgam etc. which we give no due weight. This can go in the timeline, in as brief a manner as possible, but not without the statement of it being challenged. Gotitbro (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro That is what they are alleging. If they are lying, history will judge them—we are not in a position to do so. Both claims deserve inclusion, as do other claims; either all claims should be removed, or all should be included. The first part of that video is missing, in which he mentions five landings in Amritsar and one in Adampur. The implication he is trying to convey is that India targeted a Sikh area in order to place the blame on Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @SheriffIsInTown: Then you should've have linked the full video in your ES (if you have got the link post it here). It isn't entirely clear to me that the 8 May and 10 May incidents are different, the ISPR isn't also clear on when the 10 May episode happened (if it happened on that day at all or earlier), we need a clarification on this. (Aurangzeb Ahmed who repeated the 6 missile claim in the trilateral press conference, did not detail any earlier misfires either.)

  Yes, official claims get a say but their weight/due should be apt (the original addition was a tome of a para). I never said they should be removed outright but that subsequent rejections and commentary on them needs to be added. You also added the Afghanistan claim without noting the rejection by the Taliban. I will add these. Gotitbro (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  ISPR was providing information about the events that had just occurred that night. They were detailing how India had launched missiles on its own territory with the intention of blaming those launches on Pakistan, thereby creating a pretext to attack Pakistan. I believe Afghanistan was mentioned in the same context—that it was also attacked to create a similar misunderstanding between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The attacks on Pakistani airbases were also mentioned in the same briefing. The trilateral press conference took place after Bunyan-ul-Marsoos, and AVM Aurangzeb was explaining the sequence of events from that night which led to Pakistan's operation. As I explained, the video is partial—the first part is missing—but the Urdu tickers clearly state that five Indian missiles landed in Amritsar and one in Adampur. The video is merely supplementary; the Express Tribune, a reliable secondary source, is already there. There is no reason to disallow the inclusion of this content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then you shouldn't have cited the video at all as Tribune looked fine to me from the beginning for the claims, just point to that (also captions/headlines/news tickers are never to be cited or used for article content as RS, no matter where they are coming from). And I repeat from above "I never said they should be removed outright but that subsequent rejections and commentary on them needs to be added." Gotitbro (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro I am definitely not opposed to adding rejections; I just work in intervals due to limited availability. I had planned to include the Taliban's denial during my next available time, but it had already been reverted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  ISPR is not the Army. There is no guarantee that everything DG-ISPR said is part of official Army information. ISPR is normally the information warfare wing of the Army. It earns its living by generating propaganda. There is absolutely no need to reproduce everything it said, especially when the scholars have called it "bizarre and unsubstantiated".

  Now, The Washington Post also complained about the clear disinformation I pointed out days ago.

  You can't short-circuit the WP:CONSENSUS-seeking cycle. You know WP:VNOTSUFF very well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3 ISPR is as official as it can be. It is headed by a serving Lieutenant General, is part of the Pakistan military, and is the voice of the Pakistani military, representing all branches of the Pakistan Armed Forces. When we are citing a Pakistani official claim, we can cite ISPR. There is absolutely no need to reproduce everything it said, why not? There are two parties to the conflict—if we can cite Indian government and Indian Army claims, then why can't we cite Pakistan Army claims, which come from ISPR. the scholars have called it "bizarre and unsubstantiated". The working paper by Clary was challenged at WP:RSN, and it was determined not to be a reliable source. However, I am personally not against its inclusion with attribution, and I do not mind you adding that statement with attribution. But you cannot simply reject other perfectly sourced content on the basis of a working paper that was rejected at the relevant noticeboard. When we already have numerous claims cited in the article, how is it against WP:VNOTSUFF to include this? You are using WP:CONSENSUS for gatekeeping. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will propose a draft here in a while. Though remember when you are reverted more than once, better take a course of action on the Talk page than prolong what would be an edit war. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is no special dispensation given to any government source in Wikipedia policies. It is just that in the case of military conflicts, the militaries are the only ones that have information, and therefore we have no choice but to cite them, either directly or indirectly. But we cite them for information, not misinformation. When credible third-party sources have gone on record calling it misinformation, there is no further argument about it. Do you have any third-party source that credited it as accurate information? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3 The official Pakistani claim is that they did not launch any missile or drone strikes within India prior to India's attacks on Pakistani airbases on the morning of the 10th. Therefore, any Indian claims of Pakistan launching strikes on 7, 8, and 9 May amount to misinformation by that standard, and should not be included. If those are being included, then Pakistani claims should also be represented. There are no third-party sources confirming the Indian claims, so their inclusion is questionable as well. Indian media has been called out for misinformation more frequently, yet it continues to be defended by you. Moreover, we are not relying on a working paper to discredit any claims. While Clary described them as bizarre and unsubstantiated, he provided no evidence to prove them false. Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb presented visual evidence following Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos, and the video of the trilateral conference is available on YouTube. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  All the Indian government claims included in the article can be sourced to international sources. If there are any that aren't, you are welcome to tag them with {{better source needed}}. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is what I think can be added in the article. @SheriffIsInTown, Kautilya3, and Slatersteven: Let me know what you think. Also, this claim was first made prior to the 10 May Indian attacks, in an earlier conference [around midnight-1], clarifying for placement purpose.

  Pakistan claimed that India had launched six ballistic missiles from the Adampur airbase, saying that they struck Adampur and Amritsar, and that India had targeted Afghanistan with missile and drone strikes. India denied the allegations, calling the claims "ludicrous" and "frivolous". The Taliban government also denied Pakistani claims of Indian attacks on Afghanistan. It was termed a "bizarre and unsubstantiated claim" by Clary.

  PS: I will also be proposing a rewrite of Clary under May 7, attribution to Clary himself suffices per SPS (removing Stimson or working paper) in text. Had intended to do this quite sometime ago but got stuck. Gotitbro (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro We should not use a primary source for the Indian denial; otherwise, it is fine. The Amu TV source covers the Indian denial as well, though not in the same words. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro Are we certain that we are keeping the Clary working paper? The verdict on WP:RSN was not to use it; however, if we do use it, then it should be used consistently in all instances. If we remove it, then it should be removed from all instances. Another issue is that an average reader would not know who Clary is, as he does not have an article; therefore, it is necessary to include the Stimson Center in the attribution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, since it is SPS we should not be attributing anything to the Stimson Center. Yes, the RSN advisory was to avoid this or treat this as an SPS. We are already attributing to Clary (first instance under May 7 can be as "political scientist" Christopher Clary).

  Finally, I have no problem if we remove Clary as well; fine either way. Gotitbro (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro Why are you insisting on using a primary source when we already have secondary sources conveying the simple Indian denial? The only reason I can see is to support the harsh wording such as "ludicrous" and "frivolous". Throughout this article, I notice primary sources being used to support this type of language against Pakistan. If you wish to use a primary source solely to include such language, then why not also include Pakistan's statement calling it "an act bereft of sanity", so it balances out? Otherwise, I suggest removing the primary source and retaining only the basic Indian denial as covered by secondary sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is supported by secondary sources as well (Fortune, Tolo). I included the official quotes because I found it to be inline with what was repeated by Clary and Tolo. I added what was discussed here on the Talk page and included secondary sources as an issue was raised with them; strongly recommend AGF. I have no objection with their removal. If your issue was with the quotes you should have clearly raised that, as primary sources aren't barred.

  Also, your edit only included the Indian (and Afghanistan) denial for Afghanistan when false flag strikes were denied as well. This is why things should be workshopped beforehand and avoidance made of going for inclusion without discussing first (the discussion itself being ongoing). Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My question is why we should include anything about this at all? It is not as if we have a contract with the Pakistan government so that we are obliged to include everything they said? Where is this even coming from?

We started with the premise that we should only use third-party sources. Now we are arguing about some randome stuff that all third-party sources omitted. What is going on? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

What kind of logic is this? Do we have a contract with the Indian government to include everything they say? The article contains numerous Indian claims sourced solely to Indian sources — why don’t you start removing those, just as you removed this one? Where is the agreement that we will only use third-party sources? Most editors supported the use of third-party sources for neutral claims but were fine with using Pakistani and Indian sources for statements made by their respective governments. In fact, you used The News Minute, an Indian source, just the other day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't have contract with either government. We decide what is useful information, guided by what the RS say. I haven't seen any one argue here that something should be included merely because the Indian government said it. You are doing bascially that.

In any case, I have found better sources now, and the timeline is quite different from what you had put on the mainpage.

• Pakistan Army's spokesman claims India fired ballistic missiles that fell into Indian territory, Reuters, May 9 2025 10:23 PM GMT+1 [2:23 AM PKT]
• Hannah Ellis-Petersen, Aakash Hassan, Pakistan accused of launching fresh wave of drone strikes on India, The Guardian, 9 May 2025. [Updated 10 May 2025.]
• 6 ballistic missiles fired by India ‘targeting its own population’: DG ISPR, Dawn, 10 May 2025.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I haven't seen any one argue here that something should be included merely because the Indian government said it. You are doing bascially that., no, it is the other way around. You are arguing that we should not include something because it is a Pakistani government claim. I am saying, why not—when there are Indian claims in the article, why can't we include Pakistani claims that are sourced to reliable sources? It does not matter whether someone argued or not; the fact of the matter is that there are Indian government claims sourced to Indian sources in this article. Why should we keep those if not this? Let's start with this—you tell me, why should we keep this? On 8 May, India said that Pakistan had launched drone and missile strikes on several Indian cities, including Amritsar, and that India negated these strikes by the S-400 missile system at Adampur Air Force Station, marking India's first combat use of the missile system., and the timeline is quite different from what you had put on the mainpage, you may adjust the timeline, provided it is supported by reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is normal Wikipedia editing process to argue about whether something should be included or not. That is what WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:VNOTSUFF are all about. And the WP:ONUS rests on those arguing for inclusion to demonstrate why it should be included. Claiming such-and-such a government said so is not good enough an argument. In fact, 90 percent of the time, we throw out all government statements. You seem to have completely lost your marbles. Perhaps you should take a break from this page and regain your common sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 In fact, 90 percent of the time, we throw out all government statements. Then let's throw all of them out—why single out only Pakistani statements? You seem to have completely lost your marbles. Perhaps you should take a break from this page and regain your common sense. Marble-check complete. Mine are intact — maybe the missing ones are hiding under WP:GK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: This edit is simply incorrect, neither is the write-up an oped nor is Khuldune a guest writer; The Diplomat is "generally reliable" [the highest grade for sources] per community consensus (WP:RSP) if you want to challenge this take it to RSN, this is not the place to challenge indepth RS reporting (the article is not analytic but original reporting, though that wouldn't really be material for us either). This is as good as it gets for neutral 3PARTY sourcing. You also removed HuM and other claims, since we are indeed reporting claims there is no need for this.

This also does not follow, the tables are for claims and involved sources can indeed follow, we aren't fact checking other tables below. Neither is it SYNTH, we just have a more exact idea of the claims made [BBC is only reporting summarily]. Ultimately my opinion about these remains the same, remove all of them and reduce bloat.

This I partially agree with, only six sites were named. Though from what I can tell as I see it from MoFa and others, they did not bother to name Muzaffarabad twice, only explicit places not mentioned were Gulpur and Barnala [as a neutral source tells us]. I am fine if we restore six here. But I removed "denying" [which I had added earlier myself] and changed it to "but did not acknowledge and effectively denied" as no explicit denial [or even acknowledgement] ever happened, I still retained the denial part to maintain impartiality. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro nor is Khuldune a guest writer, he is mentioned as a guest author in red under the article. Regarding the second dispute, the BBC is not reporting summarily; it is an in-depth report that covers each location under a separate subsection. The understanding here was to prefer third-party sources over partisan ones if available. In my view, since a third-party source—in this case, the BBC—covers all the locations, we do not need to rely on partisan sources. It definitely amounts to synthesis when multiple sources are used to support different aspects of the content and then combined. Here, you were using the BBC source to support part of the location names and a partisan source for another part, which in my opinion constitutes synthesis. I am not against removing all tables, though. Is there another article that lists target locations in tables like this where there is so much disagreement between the involved parties as to whether the targets are accurate? If removing all tables helps resolve the contention, then I do not mind it. As for the third dispute, the BBC source says: Pakistan said only six locations were hit and claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone - a claim India has not confirmed., if Pakistan said only six locations were hit, then that counts as a denial of the other three. There's no need to introduce complications in the text—it's better to keep it simple. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Below the red "Guest author", it says that he is "a Pakistan-based correspondent for The Diplomat". Inside the article, The Diplomat credits itself some 5 or 6 times. So this is by no means a Guest column or an op-ed. His profile shows lots of columns written by him, and I have seen his name plenty of times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

About Khuldune, I think I clarified this elsewhere but we do not rely on captions, headings and subheads on enwiki. The relevant thing is in article/body content which clearly states on Khuldune's profile "Kunwar Khuldune Shahid is a Pakistan-based correspondent for The Diplomat." The report itself is from The Diplomat as is clarified multiple times in the article itself, so the author himself is secondary here.

IE as a singular source works pretty well, but let me clarify why we need to lay out the exact locations and why using multiple sources for the same is not synthesis here. The initial May 7th-8th reports had a lot of hubub about the exact locations and they refer to the exact same thing with a multitude of names. Sarjal/Tera Kalan/Tera Katlan (the last one is correct); Masjid Syedna Bilal/Hazrat Bilal Masjid/Markaz Syedna Bilal; Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah/Masjid Subhan Allah; Mehmona Joya/Kotli Loharan (the former is correct); Barnala/Ahl-e-Hadith Masjid; Masjid-e-Abbas/Masjid Abbas/Markaz Abbas and so on. Here you cannot singularly rely on any single given source when all while in consonance refer to same things with different names, editorial judgment requires we decide what is the exact thing being referred to (we are only making things clear here not butting up disparate items in a collation as the things referred to are one and the same merely with different names; further the geoloc were made publically available and are easily verifiable [26], so we know what is the correct one). Ultimately I have no problem with doing away with the tables, but this should stay in the body.

I will restore the six locations and denial if you say so, I only amended the sentence (which I had added myself) to be sure we were not being misleading. Gotitbro (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I do not agree with your claim that this is not synthesis. An unorthodox solution I suggest is to check Google Maps for the names, as these are usually added by local editors and reflect correct local usage. Then, we can find a reliable source that uses those local names. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I cited the geoloc (maps) above as well, here again [27] (Twitter thread from an ASPI researcher). These match pretty well with what we have; I stuck to the closest location mentioned in sources to avoid OR. Gotitbro (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: We present claims as is, as we do for the rest in the timeline. We are absolutely fine citing claims from involved sources, there isn't a need to stick to 3PARTY especially for claims.

In the same instance (where you removed the alleged militant associations) you also removed locational info which follows your own proposal above. You should not then be discarding discussions and then go with partial removals in the middle when active mulling over the same content was ongoing. This is detrimental to consensus.

I am least bothered about the tables, which have been needlessly contended over, and am not discussing the changes there but for the body I am going to challenge your edits.

• For militant claims, I am fine with separating claims from verifiable facts from 3PARTY or even removing the militant claims entirely (retaining only HQ and Diplo) but removals should be based on rationale and necessity not adhoc 3PARTY limitations.
• I will still oppose changes to the location names on which much time was spent to declutter the chaff.

PS: About "camp", the entirely of the villages and towns were obviously not targeted and again these are explicitly presented as claims. But again I am fine with removing this as well.

Edit: I am fine with the latest edits. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

About the Nankana Sahib, the Al Jazeera quote is a generic one for all targeted places. We already have a specific quote from a source already used for the Amritsar claim of 8th May in the same para [28]: "He also condemned the targeting of religious sites, revealing that one of the drones was directed toward Nankana Sahib, a holy place for Sikhs, a move he described as abhorrent and unacceptable."

This is further backed by the Pakistani dossier on Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos [29], which nowhere names Nankana Sahib as the place which was attacked.

PS: Should also note that the article contains a factual error, "Pathankot: Also in Indian-administered Kashmir." Better avoid this article. Gotitbro (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I was trying to apply the same logic of preferring a third-party source like Al Jazeera over a partisan source like Radio Pakistan. However, if you insist on using Radio Pakistan, I can back off—though we might run into an issue in the future if another editor objects to the partisanship of the source and removes it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We do not blindly follow 3PARTY, here we have an article from Al Jazeera with inaccurate facts and no exact details for Nankana. On the other hand we have an exact quote from a Pakistani source, which is absolutely fine for citing claims. Gotitbro (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If Pakistan denies the accusation, we must include such a denial. Or we remove the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is the other way around. Pakistani accusation denied by India. Gotitbro (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

And considered ridiculous by third-party sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The same applies, if we include Pakistani allegations, we have to include Indian denials. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Chaudhry did not make the Afghanistan claim at 1:50 (where he only announced the alleged false flag), that was made post Indian attacks when he acknowledged and announced "Now you just wait for our response" around 3:00 PKT. I will add this to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro Still, the six-missile claim is supported by Clary as occurring around 1:45, so we cannot move that to the bottom of the section. I am, however, okay with moving the Afghanistan claim along with the 3:30 claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I only added the time in brackets for Afghanistan (cited Dawn) and fixed the airbase announcement from 3:30 to ~3:20 (again per Dawn). No moves.

  Though the conference happened around 3:05ish (as seen in the broadcast, cannot find a source explicitly saying this though). Gotitbro (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Recent removals

@نعم البدل: Here is the discussion for the Sky News bit, Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 6#Sky news reports in Muzaffarabad indian missile destroyed a mosque and school (and other similar discussions exist in the Talk archives regarding this very thing). Prior efforts to remove it have all been unsuccesful.

You removal of LeT's location (of which we had a whole discussion above regarding its HQ) is similarly null. It is relevant, all sources consider it relevant and past discussions have rendered the same. It isn't POV to state a basic fact, which all RS give due weight to, and which trigerred the crisis.

The first thing you should have done after the revert, per BRD, is come on the Talk page and look at the discussion that have already been done to death; especially so for a contentious page. I recommend you self-revert and nor overturn stable consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I very much respect you as a user, but let's not kid anyone – that was not a consensus. That was merely a discussion between new users. LeT is a non-existent and banned organisation in Pakistan now. Any buildings that they once had was taken control of by the government years ago – and this was something that was covered by BBC Urdu journalists on their ground-level reporting (I'm not sure about BBC English as I haven't been following them). As far as the Sky news source, I briefly discussed this in this (or another?) talk page – it has issues, the two main ones being that 1. It references MEMRI, 2. It bases its sources of TikTok. Not really the level of credibility one would expect from Sky News. نعم البدل (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You've also gone ahead and restored the previous section at Muridke – I would also request you to self-revert that. The attack on the mosque isn't even known as "Markaz-e-Tayyaba" anymore, to my knowledge. That entire section is WP:POV. نعم البدل (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

About Muridke and Indian media. I will be citing non-Indian sources and see what can be retained. If sourcing was an issue you should have brought that up, blanking is not what we do. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The section doesn't belong on that page! The sources are the least of my concerns, because they can be struck from the article as unreliable. The fact that the entire section is more than the rest of the article itself, which is nothing more than a stub – that is my main issue. It's straight up WP:POV, and as mentioned it's using all the buzzwords that Indian Media would love to propagate. I don't know what you expect other than a blanket revert, especially when it doesn't even mention neutral facts as a bare minimum. As much as some users would love to portray it, Muridke isn't known for being a "terror camp of LeT". نعم البدل (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, no reliable 3PARTY academic source considers the LeT to be defunct. That the Markaz is still its HQ is also covered by many recent RS including ones from Pakistan, this has been shown above. This I am not going to be debating again, sources have been adduced, discussion has been had.

About Sky News. This is Sky News' own investigation which is RS (WP:RSP); WP:MEMRI is an issue for article content not for which RS cites it. And it is relevant considering the fact that the whole claim is that it is merely a seminary with no links to militant groups, which again no RS considers to be true (and jihadist propaganda is a notable thing). When past discussion(s) to remove has/have not beared any fruit that is indeed consensus against removal.

About Murdike, multiple experienced users edited it and added to the content. You cannot and should not be unanimously be blanking content (which has incoming rds for the same). That it is POV is your assertion, but the content is relevant. Most coverage of the city in international and Pakistani media is about its ties to the Jammat-ud-Dawa or the LeT. I tried to address some concerns by clearing the lead out of it, but blanking it out is itself POV. Also, Markaz is the complex, Umm-al-Qura is the mosque (among others) within it. The complex is still known among neutral observers as the Markaz and being under the LeT management (again discussed above).

Simply put, the discussions have already been had, cinsensus reached and the content stabilized. You have recently decided to participate that is great but please don't overturn discussions and consensus on their head unanimously which were reached painstakingly in a contentious area. The removals are not only a BRD issue in a contenious IPA topic but also one discarsding enwiki process. Gotitbro (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Source discussions 1

@Gotitbro:

• Sorry, no reliable 3PARTY considers LeT to be defunct – Not true at all, pretty much every reliable source has mentioned the fact that these buildings were taken control of by the government following the ban of these organisations. This is mentioned by at the very least Al-Jazeera, BBC English articles and BBC Urdu ground journalist have mentioned this. I have yet to look through other sources, but the bottom line is LeT is a proscribed organisation in Pakistan and all their assets have been taken over by the Govt of Pakistan.
• WP:MEMRI is an issue for article content not for which RS cites it. – The Sky News article hasn't built on top of it. It's two main bases were 1. TikTok videos of the damage of the buildings, covered by unknown accounts (literally random users), and 2. MEMRI. That is not a strong source at all.
• When a past discussion(s) to remove has/have not beared any fruit that is indeed consensus against removal – On an article like this? Lol, come on. Only one long-standing user was involved in making an argument for keeping it up, and you were there in making sure it stays up – and not only here, but on other articles like Muridke.
• About Murdike, multiple experienced users edited it and added to the content – Let's discuss these "multi-experienced users". 1. Yourself, 2. Anand2202 3. Truth Layer 123 4. Kautilya3. The section at Muridke is again blatant propaganda, that not only goes against WP:POV but also WP:DUE.
• I tried to address some concerns by clearing the lead out of it, but blanking it out is itself POV. – Yet you're failing to address the elephant in the room which isn't the lede, but the entire section. It has no place in that article. The only reason why it has stayed is because the Muridke article is a niche article that hasn't garnished much attention, and these so-called "multi-experienced users" are aware of that.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If you can't AGF then there is no point of this discussion, "blatant propaganda" is not helping your case. They are reporting what the government claims and say that, I have read those news reports but independent analysts say otherwise [and are obviously going to supersede news media] as has been shown above; again I am not debating this here again feel free to go through the past discussions here.

Sky News is relevant, your analysis that it isn't RS in this instance doesn't hold up. Take it to RSN if the only issue is of reliability, becuase it is very due otherwise. Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media and scholarly reports [even in Pakistani media it is mostly associated with the JuD], we are not blanking content, I will see what I can reduce but isn't being removed, sorry. That there militant groups are based in Pakistan is reported by most academic sources, LeT and JuD facilities were supposedly taken over in 2009 as well yet no one bought it then and no analyst buys it now. Gotitbro (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• AGF I'm not familiar with this acronym, please do clarify.
• "blatant propaganda" is not helping your case – What should I call this (over at Muridke)

Markaz-e-Taiba

— Markaz-e-Taiba is a large complex in Muridke that has a range of infrastructure established by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, leader of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front organisation Jamat-ud-Dawa. It includes a madrasa, a religious preaching centre, residential quarters, a school, and various administrative buildings. While it presents itself as a religious and educational institution, multiple international intelligence assessments and security reports have identified it as a hub for indoctrination, militant training and terrorist recruitment. Ajmal Kasab, one of the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) has confessed to have trained here. It is also reported that David Coleman Headley was also trained at this facility. According to various intelligence sources and investigative reports, Osama bin Laden, the former leader of Al-Qaeda, is believed to have contributed approximately PKR 10 million (roughly USD 100,000 at the time) towards the development of the complex. In May 2025, a Sky News investigation uncovered social media videos filmed at this complex showing apparent support for two banned terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Al-Qaeda linked 313 Brigade. The videos, which were geolocated to the site, featured men carrying weapons and children involved in militant-style training. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) told Sky News that Lashkar-e-Taiba has long been known to operate its headquarters from this location. The markaz was targeted in an airstrike conducted by the Indian Air Force as part of Operation Sindoor on the night between 6 and 7 May 2025. The attack was in response to the Pahalgam attack with India stating that the operation aimed to strike locations associated with terrorist organizations. It is said that the residents were anticipating such an event and the compound was largely vacated prior to attack.

• This is 5,877 bytes out of 10,130 bytes (of the total article) including references. Tell me how that isn't blatant propaganda.
• They are reporting what the government claims and say that – The BBC Urdu journalist in this video mentioned reports from locals, not just the government. The fact is, if that section was intended to be neutral, it would have very much mentioned the fact that the LeT was banned in Pakistan, and its assets have been taken over by the government – like I say, that's a bare minimum.
• Sky News is relevant, your analysis that it isn't RS in this instance doesn't hold up. Take it to RSN if the only issue is of reliability, becuase it is very due otherwise – WP:VNOT states that while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.
• Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media – No, specifically by Indian Media, why is why out of the 10 references mentioned on that article, 5 of them were various different Indian media outlets, while the other 5 were articles from 3 outlets - BBC, Al-Jazeera and the Guardian which certainly didn't put as much weight into these allegations as the Indian articles did. That's not a co-incidence. Not to mention the excessive citing that was going on in that section.

Need I remind you: A common form of citation overkill is adding sources to an article without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people and organizations.

• I will see what I can reduce but isn't being removed, sorry. – You remove the Indian sources, and the Sky news media, which are evidently blatant POV, and you're left with nothing. The fact that you've stated that "Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media" is honestly a bit concerning, especially if you can't differentiate between Indian sources and "international media", and still not understand that the section is POV.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF means Wikipedia:Assume good faith which you are apparently not doing. It isn't concerning in the least because what I said is true, bring me one international media or academic source which mentions Muridke and is not pointing out its connection to Let etc [I know the difference between Indian and international media]. That was meant to portray Muridke as being only linked to LeT but to show that the info is very relevant. I will add Pakistani claims [and counter assesments], I will remove Sky News from there, I will see if I can find more about Muridke to add weight to the article's non-LeT coverage.

Yes, Sky News may not be relevant for the Muridke page but it is very due here. Please don't cite VNOT when you are the one overturning previous discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So interestingly, there is an urwiki page for the Markaz, ur:مرکز طیبہ and features quite prominently on the urwiki page for Muridke. Gotitbro (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• which you are apparently not doing – I said it from the start that I respect you as a user, but if you start claiming bad-faith, then the discussion will go south very quickly, especially considering there's potential issues regarding WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH with yourself and the "experienced editors". Please let's not go there.
• I know the difference between Indian and international media] – Bearing in mind that Muridke is not a significant city, and one that most Pakistanis would fail to point out on the map. It has a population of 255k in a country where the total population is 250+ million. Even for Urdu Media, I could only find around 15 Urdu news articles about Muridke prior to the conflict (none which talk about LeT), despite Urdu media having discussed this topic before. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• bring me one international media or academic source which mentions Muridke and is not pointing out its connection to Let etc – Find me a tool where I can block out Indian media, because I literally cannot find any article or website, that wasn't written by a person from India, or from Indian Media. I can't even find Pakistani sources for that matter, and I don't think you're that naive that you would not be aware of Indian Media's disinformation campaign that has been active since early 2000s.

You don't think it perhaps causes an issue that the main section of the Muridke article, a stub might I remind, is one that propagates an Indian narrative? And yes that's all it is, an Indian narrative. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• there is an urwiki page for the Markaz, ur:مرکز طیبہ – a page created with no references, and a total of 10 edits, last edited in Feb 2023, and before that 2012. Even for Urdu Wikipedia standards, that's the very bottom, and has a clean-up tag, which is something I've rarely seen. It's not doing you any favours. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• I will remove Sky News from there,

And why not here? The article isn't reliable. If you're going to remove it from Muridke – it needs to be removed here as well.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think discussing this with your abrasiveness is going to bear much of anything. I am not claiming bad faith on your part, I am saying you are and with that tone things aren't going to be conducive for any discussion. If you have anything against any editor take it to ANI but stop casting Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. Pointing out AGF is no big deal, this is standard when editors appear unnecessarily uncollaborative. There is no conspiracy here. We are all seeing how we can work together, if you aren't for it then there is no point of this discussion.

Find you a tool, yes, search for books, go to academic sources and journals and don't rely on news [and finally you can always filter results by country on Google etc]. LeT is relevant to Muridke and vice verse. That it is an unimportant city with no known coverage beyond it, is of no relevance to us.

I only pointed out the urwiki page as an interesting facet that the Markaz is not some conjured up entity of no note and is clearly relevant to Muridke.

Because Sky News is RS and due here for this conflict [reliability issues should be taken to RSN, a single line mention of MEMRI does not make it unreliable], and I have already explained why, but perhaps it is not much due elsewhere [recentism etc]. You are hinging on content blanking which isn't simply what we are going to do. Gotitbro (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have expanded the Muridke article and included images, content, tables and sections, increasing the weight of non LeT content which should address certain concerns.

For the Markaz, I have limited myself to scholarly sources and analyses; removed Sky, removed Kasab, removed Headley; though I have not included the supposed ban and govt. takeover of it as academic sources all say that multiple previous bans and takeovers have never been enforced and further non-news RS, as recently as this very conflict, continue to call it LeT's HQ. This took sometime but I did the best I could to say what is accepted in academic non-news RS, this should address any of the concerns raised above.

If this still isn't satisfactory, I have another solution. Moving most of the content to the LeT or Nangal Sahdan [its exact location] page but still retaining a single line mention of the Markaz HQ at the Muridke page. Gotitbro (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have expanded the Muridke article and included images, content, tables and sections – I do appreciate that. The article was on my to-do list, and the article does seem more lively now, but I still do have points of contention with that section. نعم البدل (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am not claiming bad faith on your part, I am saying you are and with that tone things aren't going to be conducive for any discussion – Hi, I do want to reiterate that I misunderstood that – I did indeed thought you were claiming bad faith on my part. I do want to apologise for that. I only just caught that. نعم البدل (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Source discussions 2

@Gotitbro This page actually needs an administrator edit access now. Discuss on the talk page and let the evaluation be done before any addition. I just came back to check this page after a related page was tagged on a WP/reqlist.

This conversation is happening like the nth time now and it was answered about more than 10 times maybe? 5 at least without exaggeration! I contributed here actively in the discussions/article up until a week ago. I left doing so after a fake-vandalising edit based ANI discussion was raised by some user hiding behind the IP as I thought may/may not be true or let's just say an unregistered/unreliable/victim-mentality IP user. It seems to be exactly 100% similar conversation I had but worded with some reasoning here from the other side. Deja vu.

• Also نعم البدل, if you have a problem with the sources, raise it to the relevant forum. If you don't like some lines added here, check whether the sources are mentioning that. Plus, after checking edit summaries - no one is bound to find you discussions as you may still like to edit/revert with or without initiating a discussion. You can check them yourself or rather initiate a conversation again and wait for the consensus to edit. Experienced editors will point out the discussion.

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@نعم البدل HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sky News uses phrases like "appears to be filmed" and "sought to verify"; it does not state with definitive certainty that the videos were filmed at those locations. We cannot include a hypothesis from a source—an encyclopedia is not the place for speculation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The article lays it down pretty clearly that they were filmed at the Markaz, they temper it because they aren't physically verifying this. Your original revert was also based on notability, considering that we include the bakery incident this is much more relevant and notable than that. We aren't speculating on our part, we are summarizing what Sky News reported based on strong digital footprints. You're also overturning past discussion unanimously something which would be a no go, so please self-rv and gain consensus. If the question is of reliability we can take it to RSN. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro You should refrain from making these claims of an existing consensus when there is none, only when your preferred content is removed, this is called status quo stonewalling and not a valid reason to oppose any changes to the article. نعم البدل is correct that following the crackdown by the Pakistani government, many of the buildings affiliated with LeT have been under the Pakistani government control[30] for a while now. Orientls (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources have been cited, all of which see the bans as ineffective where the groups largely continue as before (it was banned and taken over similarly twice in the 2000s and again in 2018, which was also questioned).

On the other hand recent non-news RS (IISS,LWW) among others continue to see the Markaz as an LeT hub. The sources beyond news media on this are simply too strong.

Al Jazeera and any of the other news media haven't independently verified anything they are merely reporting on the govt./Markaz officials claims. The Jazeera reports makes this very clear.

We are going to need much better sources than news media airing govt. claims to impeach the academic content.

About consensus I cited only for removal of Sky News, when an attempt to impeach content through a long and varied discussion resulted in a go that is indeed consensus against removal. To remove that again, a unanimous decision can't get a go ahead. There is no stonewalling happening here, editors need appreciate the process here, we can't around changing stable content on what we feel is right. "Stonewalling", no if anything I have been most considerate to take into account concerns raised. If you see a conduct problem take it to whatever board you see fit but please don't go around claiming bad faith. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• Academic sources have been cited – Such as? Christine Fair which Kautilya3 has mentioned previously? I don't think so – Christine Fair as a reference is problematic on its own. Please mention these other academic sources. The reference you gave was dated 7 years ago, even though steps were taken against JeM in 2019, including the imprisonment of Hafiz Muhammed Saeed. Every non-Indian article (or let's even say pro-India source), has mentioned this. This was reiterated by Dawn this month when the Punjab government released the list of proscribed organisations in Pakistan.[31]. The MoI in 2019 also reiterated that actions were taken against JeM.[32].
• The fact that BBC Urdu journalist reported on the ground in May 2025 and verified it from locals that the mosque and by extension the city no longer has any links to LeT or it's related organisations, should be enough to negate that.
• Al-Jazeera reported recent:

  Pakistan says LeT has been banned, however. Following an attack on Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pulwama in 2019, Pakistan also reimposed a lapsed ban on Jamat-ud-Dawa. Saeed was arrested in 2019 and is in the custody of the Pakistani government, serving a 31-year prison sentence after being convicted in two “terror financing” cases.[33] نعم البدل (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• BBC [34]

  Until a few years ago, it was originally used by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group which is designated as a terror organisation by the United Nations. It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT. Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke ... One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago. نعم البدل (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal. Anyhow numerous other sources have been adduced which say the exact same thing including Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, you are free to go through them. These bans have always been perfunctory is noted by all academic lit (three takeovers of the Markaz have happened since the Musharraf era), Reuters noted the ineffectiveness of the 2018 takeover even back then ([35]).

  Academic sources including ISSI are clear that these bans have never been effective and there is no evidence they have been now, sources cited in this very article (Long War Journal, International Institute of Strategic Studies etc.) are very clear on how they regard the Markaz [as LeT's HQ].

  The discussion hinges on two things though: whether mentioning the Markaz at Muridke is due, which as has been shown through multiple academic RS very much is. And second whether the LeT itself is banned/defunct and the Markaz out of its control; for the first of these almost every source tracking militants considers it to be an active organization based in Pakistan (this is not debated among independent sources news media or otherwise), and whether the Markaz is out of its control, there is no evidence in support of it beyond news organizations re-reporting govt. claims who nonetheless still note that Muridke is known as the hub of LeT, and as I say above non-news RS still consider the Markaz to be LeT's effective HQ. If you have anything beyond sources restating govt. claims and who make their independent assessment we can go ahead. But the weight of the sources is simply against that [but also note news sources are always at the bottom list of RS]. Gotitbro (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @SheriffIsInTown: "Was" implies that the Markaz no longer exists, this isn't supported by anyone; a takeover happened in 2018 which is itself seen as perfunctory. Please participate in this discussion and bring academic sources or independent analysts which state that the Markaz is no longer linked to or connected with the LeT/JuD. News sources which are only reporting govt./local claims and aren't independently verifying anything are not what would support the inclusion of the determinative "was" when the sources themselves don't say that. The pattern moreover tells us that, after 3 prior bans all seen as unimplemented, this isn't effective either something reported by sources even back in 2018 and further affirmed by non-news RS who continue to view the Markaz as its HQ. Please continue the discussion here, BRD exists and we follow it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro We need to move the discussion about Muridke to that article. The academic sources currently cited are between 8 and 23 years old, so we cannot use a definitive "is" based on them. I believe @نعم البدل has already provided more recent news sources confirming that the organisation is defunct. Given that only older sources attest to its existence while newer sources confirm its defunct status, we should use a definitive "was"—unless we have credible, recent sources indicating that it still exists. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion can continue here. I have pointed this out twice here, the news sources are only voicing the govt. claim they aren't making any independent assessment. Your determinative insertion of "was" will have to do better than these claims questioned themselves by other news sources and who are directly opposed to what independent think tanks and reportage even contemporarily continue to say (IISS, LWJ). I believe I am repeating myself here but even if you want to bring news sources, bring ones that make an original assessmemt and aren't quoting a local official etc. The date of the academic sources is not going impeach their weight, due and reliability unless we have something absolutely credible that says something which goes against all academic sourcing on this topic. The onus is simply on proving "was" in a determinative manner not the other way around.

  Again bans in the past were ineffective as noted by all sources, have been questioned this time around as well and non-news RS continue to call Muridke and the Markaz as the LeT hub. There is nothing to assume anything otherwise here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  So let us see what another independent, contemporary and i depth source has to say on this.

  The Diplomat May 31, 2025:

  While the JuD’s terror-listing by the United Nations and the U.S., along with impending sanctions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), prompted a crackdown against the charity in Pakistan in 2018, members of the LeT and JuD told me in interviews that the continued backing of the Pakistan Army for these groups was “not hidden from anyone.”
  ... So while the Pakistani state has cracked down on JuD-allied charities, and sentenced LeT leaders like Hafiz Saeed, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and Zafar Iqbal to prison, political parties officially paying allegiance to Saeed have surfaced as part of the military’s mainstreaming of jihadist groups. ... The latest political rebirth of LeT is the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML) which contested the 2024 election. While the PMML officially denies any connection with the Lashkar-e-Taiba or any involvement with militancy, its leadership says the party backs the armed struggle for Kashmir’s independence. In a statement to The Diplomat, the PMML said the party backs “freeing Kashmir from Indian occupation” as a single-point Kashmir policy. “Not only is India involved in extreme human rights violations in Kashmir, but it is also involved in destabilizing and terrorizing the whole region,” said PMML General Secretary Saifullah Khalid Kasuri. [Sanctioned as a global terrorist] “India’s war-mongering necessitates a return to the ideology of Pakistan and cutting off of all ties with India,” he added.
  The Diplomat's investigations reveal not just the PMML's political connection with the LeT, but also the party's spearheading of the madrassa network, including the Markaz-e-Taiba in Muridke, one of the sites hit by Indian strikes. In a video shared with The Diplomat by a student of the Markaz-e-Taiba, recorded days before the Pahalgam attack, a local PMML leader Naseer Ahmad can be heard telling a gathering in Muridke that "the ideological offspring of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed will continue his jihad." In March, LeT cofounder Amir Hamza, a close aide of Hafiz Saeed, delivered a Friday sermon at the Markaz-e-Taiba urging “jihad against the kuffaar (infidels) including Israel and India.” The Markaz-e-Taiba frequently hosts Hafiz Saeed’s son Talha Saeed, along with PMML founders Saifullah Kasuri and Tabish Qayyum, both of whom were also cofounders of the Milli Muslim League. ... The funeral prayers for those who died in the Indian strike on the Markaz-e-Taiba were led by the LeT-affiliated, U.S.-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdul Rauf, who ran the group’s Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation.

  This should settle any questions of the Markaz being defunct. Gotitbro (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that Gotitbro. Even if the original organisations are supposedly banned, the Markaz-e-Taiba is devoted to propagating the Ahle Hadith sect, which has jihad as its integral part. MDI/JuD/LeT have indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of people. So even if the organisations get banned and the leaders imprisoned, the remnants will last a hundred years. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: Yes thank you for the unnecessary religious lecture. Unfortunately, the said "Markaz-e-Taiba" does not even exist. The government took over the compound years ago, and re-organised the syllabus that was being taught in the seminary. I mentioned that in one of my sources, I believe it was the BBC one – where the ground reporter had spoken to locals. نعم البدل (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  A fair proportion of the curriculum also focused on jihad. For example, an Urdu textbook used by the classes in their second year of primary education featured the final testaments of mujahideen given before they went into battle.[27] Secondary school primers were modified such that ‘c’ is for cat and ‘g’ is for goat became ‘c’ is for cannon and ‘g’ is for gun. Teachers also had to have taken part in at least one jihad campaign or gone for military training.[28] Schooling entailed a significant physical element, including swimming, mountaineering, wrestling and martial arts. This curriculum was intended to prepare students for jihad, even though the group never intended to send all of them to fight.[29]

  -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Source date: <2011. Or precisely 14 years ago. نعم البدل (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fine. But where is the evidence that the curriculum has changed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro:

  • the news sources are only voicing the govt – Not necessarily. Not every source has claimed that this was just a Govt narrative. BBC Urdu and English have both confirmed this through locals. Al-Jazeera has also stated it as a fact, and not just as "the government says...". There was also a NYTimes source which has stated this, but I forgot to bookmark it.
  • have been questioned this time around as well and non-news RS continue to call Muridke and the Markaz as the LeT hub – Sources which I have requested for. So far, I have brought you a number of references that say otherwise.
  • So let us see what another independent, contemporary and i depth source has to say on this. – The Diplomat May 31, 2025 – The Diplomat is not an "independent" source. It is an Indian Media outlet (edit) when it concerns South Asian articles. نعم البدل (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  • The funeral prayers for those who died in the Indian strike on the Markaz-e-Taiba were led by the LeT-affiliated, U.S.-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdul Rauf – Pretty sure this was debunked, and you can guess where this was propagated from. نعم البدل (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Locals are no more an authority than people actually writing and analyzing militant groups. I have read all the news reports that you cite nowhere do they make an indpendent assessment.

  About The Diplomat (magazine) it isn't Indian, that is false, and it is widely considered RS on enwiki (see WP:RSP). News media merely airing official/local claims isn't going to make them anymore credible. I came at this from an open mind but the sources are simply against what you propose. You are free to take this to RSN, DRN or any other noticeboard but I consider this a settled issue on the weight of sources alone.

  And Hafiz Abdur Rauf (LeT sanctioned member) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar.

  I consider this the end of the discussion for the Markaz being defunct. We have a very high quality RS from a day ago laying out in explicit terms how it absolutely isn't. Then you have other sources which say the same, from this very month or year. News bites are not going to impeach these.

  PS: Your assesment of Fair and public criticism against her are not relevant to how her work has been received academically. To do that we look at journal reviews etc. which have been positively receptive to it. You cannot impeach scholarly work because the authors have expressed views considered controversial. Take John Mearsheimer for e.g., controversial and recently publicly derided but widely respected for his scholarly work. Even if you remove C. Christine Fair we have other academic sources that say the same. Gotitbro (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  • About The Diplomat (magazine) it isn't Indian, that is false ... And Hafiz Abdur Rauf (LeT sanctioned member) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar. – I clarified it that when it concerns that South Asian topics, it is indeed an Indian Media outlet, not necessarily based in India. The fact that the article mentioned the cleric who led the funeral prayer supposedly being Hafiz Abdur Rauf actually proves this point, because that point was tunnelled through Indian outlets, and it is only being spread by Indian sources, or ad-hoc Indian media sites. The identity of the cleric has not even been clarified anywhere to my knowledge.
  • it is widely considered RS on enwiki (see WP:RSP) So is Indian Media generally, but what you don't seem to be grasping is my point. If you had to put your sources on a scale, with one side being pro-India, and the other being pro-Pakistani propaganda, your sources regarding Muridke would indeed be more on the end of pro-India, no? There is a reason why there is an extra emphasis on 3rd party sources for Indo-Pak articles, which evidently The Diplomat is not.
  • We have a very high quality RS from a day ago laying out in explicit terms how it absolutely isn't. Then you have other sources which say the same, from this very month or year. News bites are not going to impeach these. If I'm correct, you've brought three sources: 1. Christine Fair, 2. The Diplomat, 3. Stephen Tankel's assessment which is at least 14 years old, where "Markaz-e-Tayyaba" being taken over by the government and the revision of the syllabus taught in the seminary was in the last 6 years. "Newsbites" may not seem as strong, but when several independent sources have stated it, they do tend to be reliable enough.
  • I consider this the end of the discussion for the Markaz being defunct. – The lack of a consensus would say otherwise... 3 users object. نعم البدل (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    The Diplomat is not an Indian source it is 3PARTY, your claims are simply untrue and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion; the journalist himself is from Pakistan. There have been multiple discussions over it on RSN and it is considered generally RS; if you have an issue with it take it to the RSN board. We are not re-litagating its reliability here.

    BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims. These are not independent verifications. Something which the Diplomat did above and which is in line with what Reuters reported earlier when the ban initially happened, it is just like the previous ones i.e. unenforced. That the bans have always been like this is noted also by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad.

    It is time to put this dicussion to an end. The earlier objections may have been valid when recent sources weren't adduced. They have been now.

    PS: Here is Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity (though it doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist). Gotitbro (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    Gotitbro:

    • The Diplomat is not an Indian source it is 3PARTY – Again, I didn't say it's based in India, nor that the newspaper is Indian media. I said that that its South Asian division, which is led by an Indian-origin journalist, is – it is, in effect, an Indian outlet based in the US. Like I said, this point about the cleric was tunnelled through Indian Media, something which wasn't echoed by actual 3PARTYs.
    • BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims – Both have included quoted locals[36] to say it wasn't.
    • The mosque isn't even known as "Markaz-e-Tayyab", it is known as "Masjid Ummul Qura"[37][38]. It's also important to mention that the surrounding medical complex were also taken over by the government.
    • Your source from The Tribune was already refuted since it was written in 2018, the takeover was done in 2019, as I've said several times now.
    • Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity Slightly perplexed as to why you've brought this reference in, when it 1. Categorically states that point about the cleric being a supposed terrorist, Indian propaganda, which negates your source of The Diplomat, and 2. doesn't even accept the cleric was the militant and was just an ordinary cleric of the mosque. نعم البدل (talk)

    نعم البدل (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    First about Abdur Rauf, I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above (here again). Ausaf was used just as a source verifying his identity. The Diplomat is now merely independently reporting on and verifying it.

    The takeover procedure had started in 2018 of course never happened as is noted by our later sources here.

    You are broaching flimsy territory when you want to impeach an RS source based on the supposed ethnicity of its editor and circular reasoning. I would gravely suggest you stop here. If you have problems with The Diplomat litigate them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, this isn't the place to overturn prior RSN consensus for specific source considered generally RS. Gotitbro (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

    • to impeach an RS source based on the supposed ethnicity of its editor and circular reasoning – Point to be noted is that it is not based on the ethnicity, but rather the source of the information. I'm saying bring me other 3PARTYs which have echoed this point. You brought in Ausuf which is calling the same point "Indian propaganda".
    • I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above That is WP:OR, because your conjugating two sources which are claiming two different things. You stated that Ausuf doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist, not it actually claimed the opposite of that. You can't take one half of an article and excuse the rest.
    • If you have problems with The Diplomat litigate them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard – Suppose, we ignore the source of the information, and I agree that you have supposedly two (dubious) sources which say it isn't defunct, I have two sources BBC and Al-Jazeera, at a minimum, which say they are defunct on the bases that BBC claims it as a fact, and Al-Jazeera quotes locals and the government. You're dismissing them on the bases that it's "news-bites", which is basically what Wikipedia is based on. This is ignoring several other points that I've made.نعم البدل (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      By the way, the captions of pictures of Muridke in NYTimes stated the compound

      Rescuers searched for victims in the debris of a damaged government complex.

      as well as

      At a government health and educational complex in Muridke, about 20 miles from Lahore, Pakistan, on Wednesday.

      and as far as the funeral was concerned just stated

      Pakistani soldiers attending a funeral.

      [39] نعم البدل (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      Rauf is a sanctioned terrorist, and the Diplomat has correctly reported on this. I was merely addressing your claim that even the identity isn't verified. Ausaf did not cover the verifiable fact that he is sanctioned and I myself noted it, again I used the source only to verify his identity.

      Captions and headlines are never considered reliable, we rely on article content. Single-line news mentions (including the previous ones cited) aren't going impeach an indepth RS magazine article. And no Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOTNEWS we are biased for and towards academic sources. You are calling the Diplomat article Indian propaganda based on your own circular reasoning. Take it to RSN, but I am sure the conclusion would still be that it is RS and better than the the perfunctory news articles that you weight this against. Gotitbro (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      It wasn't just a one-liner, though. The BBC article explicitly states:

      It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT. Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke ... One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago.

      The in-depth Al-Jazeera article discussing whether it was actually a "terror base" or mosque, while explaining the different areas of the compound states:

      The Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD in 2019, at a time when the country was under international pressure to crack down on Saeed and the LeT or be placed on a “grey list” of countries deemed as not doing enough to stop financing for banned armed groups.

      • than the the perfunctory news articles that you weight this against – What you call "perfunctory news articles", would be news organisations reporting on skirmishes and strirkes carried out by two nuclear powers. Even the absence, or lack of confirmation of [t]he takeover procedure [which] had started in 2018 of course never happened as is noted by our later sources here and only claimed by compromised sources is nothing but dubious at best, especially when 3PARTYs do not cover these points.
      • of course never happened – This is also not true, whether or not these organisations operate covertly or not is one discussion, but these take-over did certainly take place, with the Reuters source stating[40]:

        A sign outside describes the site as a government health and educational complex, but India says it is associated with the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

        – which meant that a takeover did in fact take place. This is also backed by the captions on the images shared by Associated Press.

      These are not just "perfunctory news articles" that haven't alleged whether the likes of JeM is still active, but explicitly denounces them as defunct, and states that the govt did in fact take charge of the compound (and not just the mosque).

      • Also in regards to the cleric, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the Reuters article also states this:

        Azhar, who has not been seen for years, and his brother, Abdul Rauf Asghar, deputy head of the group, did not appear to have attended the funeral prayers.

      Of course, it's not just a matter of RSs, it's also the fact that there isn't actually a consensus for the edits. نعم البدل (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Source discussions 3

You are again confusing Masood's brother for Saeed's aide. Moving on, signs and all don't matter much when you have articles and sources explicitly stating that the Markaz us still in the hands of the LeT/its fronts. When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue. BBC and Al Jazeera simply reporting on govt. actions isn't what an independent assessment constitutes with them making no determininative judgment. The consensus is not the one needed for inclusion, the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles (LeT, Muridke and here); especially when the weight of the sources, academic and otherwise, are against whatever you propose. The HQ simply isn't defunct, it hasn't been in oqst takeovers before (read the ISSI report, and read LWJ) and there is no evidence for it now (we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment). I think I have said what I needed to say and believe we are going around in circles, if you still have sourcing issues (news bites over indepth investigation are also RS issues) take them to RSN because litigating them here isn't going to lead to much of anything. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• • Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal – Christine Fair:

    Fair's work and viewpoints have been the subject of criticism. In 2015, journalist Glenn Greenwald dismissed Fair's arguments in support of drone strikes as "rank propaganda", arguing there are "enormous amounts of evidence" showing drones are counterproductive, pointing to mass civilian casualties and independent studies ... Pakistani media analysts have dismissed Fair's views as hawkish rhetoric, riddled with factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, and being selectively biased. She has been accused by the Pakistani government of double standards, partisanship towards India, and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Balochistan, a link which they claim "raises serious questions if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic."Further, her assessment of Sikh militant movement has been interpreted as highly partisan and parroting the official Indian view to malign the militants.

  Not really a source I would consider credible. نعم البدل (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think you should abandon these arguments. Whatever opinions she might have expressed about drone strikes have no bearing on her Oxford University Press-published academic work. If you don't find her "credible", Wikipedia has nothing to do with them. Please keep it to yourself or raise it at WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I'm coming back to this after a few days, as I've been busy recently.

• When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue ... we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment - Fair's tweets on X and personal opinons are enough to show that her works shouldn't be qualified here. What I don't understand is why this is a "my way or the highway". Yeah this is a RS issue, but it's not one-way. It's a two-way street. You're dimissive tone with my sources means you're also rejecting my sources which are much more recent than yours and more comprehensive (specfically the Al-Jazeera article, which is attempting to tackle this very topic). The same can be said to you, especially when it's clear you can't establish a concensus on this discussion, that if you have an issue with my sources then you should be the one going to WP:RS as well.
• You have no arguments against the "news bites", other than essentially a personal dislike for them.
• the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles - Something that has been pushed by several users across several pages, and then also disputed isn't "stable content" and also problematic, that too on articles which are continiously being edited and worked on due to a high-profile event - again you've been here long enough to know that that would not be considered "stable content".
• The HQ simply isn't defunct - the building and compound is still running. No one denied that. LeT isn't using that place. That's the issue. One thing that baffles my mind is that you can't even bring yourself about to accept the fact that even a frontal takeover by government has indeed taken place, which, putting everything aside, has taken place. Ground sources say that, and prove that.
• (read the ISSI report, and read LWJ) - Are you going to start bringing in every random article written by every Dick and Tom, on every random website, while simoltaneously ignoring the sources that are in front of you?

-- نعم البدل (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an RS issue not a content one, sources already considered RS and non-RS per policy and by community consensus (academic and others) should not be litigated here. Take it to the RSN is all I have to say at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sharing a quote from The Diplomat article:

Conversations with those associated with the PMML, and evidence reviewed by The Diplomat, reveals continued advocacy for armed jihad at these madrassas. However, there is little evidence of militant training at these locations, including at the Markaz-e-Taiba, which was once a major LeT camp.

In the first sentence, The Diplomat names itself. So it is not correct to label this as a "guest article". The second sentence is most likely false or at least misleading. All the scholarly studies of LeT (Christine Fair, Stephen Tankel, Samina Yasmin) as well as journalist Arif Jamal have only described Markaz-e-Taiba as the "headquarters" of LeT/MDI/JuD. The LeT training involved three courses, of which the basic course was taught at this place for everybody (militant or non-militant). The more advanced weapons training was given somewhere close to the border. Both the LeT convicts Ajmal Kasab and David Headley had their basic course at the Markaz. The Indian government has been using the term "terrorist infrastructure", which covers all such places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

• In the first sentence, The Diplomat names itself. So it is not correct to label this as a "guest article". - I never had an issue with the specific author, I had an issue with The Diplomat, overall as it has had a history of parroting Indian propaganda, with articles using (and not simply 'mentioning') biased language such as "PoK" and whatnot. The Diplomat is not a 3PARTY source, and there is a reason why its reporting or similar reporting hasn't been done by actual 3PARTYS.
• Christine Fair, Stephen Tankel, Samina Yasmin - These are your sources, 2 of which are problematic and definetly not neutral, and 1 (Stephen Tankel) is out-dated.

Bulk of the weight is on The Diplomat, a newspaper, which certainly isn't as "esteemed" as other newspapers. Yet we're ignoring the likes of Al-Jazeera, BBC English, BBC Urdu (inc. on ground sources), and NYTimes.

@Gotitbro: Take it to the RSN is all I have to say at this point. - I will, but your unwillingless to even consider my sources are a little puzzling. نعم البدل (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The Diplomat article also notes that Amir Hamza gave a Friday sermon at Markaz-e-Taiba in March this year, well after it was supposedly taken over by the Government and branded as an "Administrative block". (Pity I don't have an emoji to put here.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to quote The Diplomat all you like, and employ as many emojies as you'd like - my stance on The Diplomat is clear, and for good reasons. I'll even go deeply into it at WP:RS, should we fail to make any progress here. نعم البدل (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

@Gotitbro: You need to tell me your position on the Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba because from what it seems, it is nothing more than an Indian propaganda piece on Wikipedia, while users unapologetically bring in WP:POV sources to WP:CITESPAM sources, such as Christine Fair, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, as well as niche references like the "The Diplomat (magazine), Le Figaro", "Le Monde", "South Asian Terrorism Portal", which is quite literally an Indian source (which seeks to expose "Islamist extremism & terrorism in South Asia", or quite literally anything seen as "anti-India"), among other references, while failing to acknowledge recent sources, or any source that doesn't convey an Indian POV. These are only issues with the sources - the wording, and issues with WP:SYNTH, not to mention the fact that several sources which I've mentioned here, have been used in the article, yet the full context hasn't been mentioned at Muridke - such as the Al-Jazeera source, which as I mentioned earlier was meant to tackle this very issue, which you even fail to acknowledge. I am proposing the following compromise on the topic, because even with your edits to other sections of Muridke, it's still evident that the article is not even about the city itself but JeM. If not, then I will be starting an RFC for this, because for some reason my IP keeps getting blacklisted and I can't edit anything until my IP cycles and I'm not waiting several weeks to be able to contribute to any discussions while the Indian POV that Muridke is the centre of global terrorism is pushed across all of Wikipedia (p.s feel free to read up on WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH), and I don't see a concensus on the removal of the entire section among us. Here is my proposal:

• Markaz-e-Taiba is a compound and headquarters of the proscribed militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, located in the suburb of Nangal Sahdan. The centre has a range of infrastructure, established by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed in 1990, which includes the Umm al-Qura Mosque, a seminary, a hospital and various administrative buildings. In 2009, the Punjab government took over the complex, but JuD continued to operate from there, whereby in 2019, the Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD and has maintained control since.
• The mosque was targeted in an airstrike conducted by the Indian Air Force as part of Operation Sindoor on the night between on 7 May 2025. The Government of Pakistan has maintained the claim that the complex is a civilian facility run by the Government.

This is a more neutral setting for which WP:RS can be found. I am also not settling for any version which does not emphasise on the fact that the government has maintained, or at least has claimed to have taken over the compound as a civil facility (in contrast to the claims of JeM or any auxliary group maintaining control of it (and not just a one-liner)). The mention of the compound should also be a brief mention to keep it WP:NPOV, because the article is about Muridke, not Markaz-e-Tayyaba, regardless of the fact that Kautliya3 decided to add[41] a redirect of Markaz-e-Taiba to Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba. Also pinging @HilssaMansen19, Orientls, and SheriffIsInTown: who have commented here before. نعم البدل (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally decide what is and isn't RS when community consensus already exists for it, you were told to take this to RSN but you persist. The Diplomat, Figaro and Le Monde aren't fringe, bizzare for anyone to claim this. South Asia Terrorism Portal is a well known terrorism database for the region, anyone who has read anything about militant groups in South Asia knows this. Fair and Chaudhury are scholars and have been published in 3PARTY RS, personal accusations of POV are irrelevant. Finally in-conflict news sources making no assessment of their own (Al Jazeera etc.) are definitely at the bottom end of what we would need as RS for adding material going against academic consensus. Government claims, in wikivoice no less, are definitely not going to be the last word on anything when independent sources and the militant group itself say otherwise.

I had already proposed moving the bulk of the content to the LeT or Nangal Sahdan article and only keeping a brief mention of it at Muridke (in the discussion above) and am still open to it. I cannot agree with reduction of it where moved elsewhere or giving prominence to governmental claims or with the continued attack on RS.

When a proposal begins with "propaganda" and ends with behavorial accusations that is itself telling of how not to approach making proposals. RfC can be starting point but when your fundamental premise is based on attacking community-decided RS, that is not how you want to approach things.

PS: Please learn to differentiate between JeM and LeT. Gotitbro (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• You cannot unilaterally decide what is and isn't RS when community consensus already exists for it - You're backtracking from your words. Which consensus? It has been disputed by a couple of users even apart from those who are already a part of this discussion. You and Kautliya3 have shot down any attempts of trying to change those POVs, and when I stated there is no consensus, you argued that a consensus was irrelevant. So I ask you again, which consensus are you referring to? There is no "community consensus", and no consensus here.
• You cannot unilaterally decide what is - And you do? Because at the very least, I've acknowledged the sources that you've brought, and presented my issues with them, which other users have agreed with. Your reasoning for discarding and dismissing my sources was not that they're not credible, rather because you insinuated you didn't prefer them. As far as that's concerned, you should be the one going to RS as well.
• The Diplomat, Figaro and Le Monde aren't fringe, bizzare for anyone to claim this - Really? Come on, I've given you some reasons. Have the decency to at least acknowledge them, some of them which are literally Indian sources, not to mention that out of all the possible sources, you bring them, while shooting down Al-Jazeera, BBC, NYTimes and whatnot? Yes that is bizarre.
• Academic sources may have their credit but they need to be reliable and neutral. Christine Fair is not. Feel free to open up a consensus in that regard.
• personal accusations of POV are irrelevant - It's not personal if they're on the record and even stated on the author's Wikipedia article, as I've shown you. The vast majority of three sources are either outdated or weak/unreliable. You're telling me you'll put up "South Asian Terrorism Portal", (which is based in India, and you've been here long enough to know that we have the decency of not using Indian sources for pro-Indian POV against Pakistan and vice versa), against other reputable source, and find no issues with that?
• I cannot agree with reduction of it where moved elsewhere or giving prominence to governmental claims or with the continued attack on RS. - Well, the bulk of it as you said needs to be reduced, not moving, and curtainly not expanded as some users as hell bent on doing.
• When a proposal begins with "propaganda" and ends with behavorial accusations - I stand by my points, feel free to refute them and explain or they don't against the wikipedia policies that I've mentioned. You can beautify 3-4 sources into a note and attach 3 other sources to prove a point but it would still go against WP:CITESPAM.
• you were told to take this to RSN - And fyi, I was going to take it RS, but my IP refreshed and was blacklisted. I only came back to see if you were willing to compromise or not, since I hadn't put forward one. نعم البدل (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not deciding anything here, whatever has been stated here is based on WP:RS policies and precedent. Take it to RSN, this is inherently a sourcing issue where you want to overturn community consensus decided for WP:RSP "generally reliable" sources by that board. It is not going to be litigated here, sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Actualy this seems to be more of a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Which has been addressed, but the main contention which has occupied this enlarged section is the unevidenced labelling of community-decided RSP sources. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Indian casualty

I am requesting a RFC in order to resolve an edit war like situation with user Mar4d about Indian claims about an Indian air force officer being killed during the conflict, they claim that is corroborated by the following NYT report. However, my point of contention is that the article does not have any mention of an officer, it mentions that the family of soldier claims that they have been killed during the Udhampur strike.

Secondly, no Indian official source has explicitly claimed that an Indian air force officer has been killed in action. It is a claim made by the New York Times and should not come under section of Indian claims.

Until a consensus is reached, I am reverting his edits, and ask you to help reach a consensus. Skeptical Sapien (talk)

It was reported by PTI. No problem with calling it an Indian claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems like the original edit where it was claimed an Indian officer was killed in action has been corrected to a soldier, will remove the RFC now. Skeptical Sapien (talk)

References

May 7th Table (Maiden Missile strikes by India) from WP:RS Stays. Stop edit warring on it

Just because India happened to inflict more damage on the ground and some people do not like it, it does not mean we rewrite history. The May 7th Maiden Missile strikes of India table is accurate and is from WP:RS. So please stop WP:BLUDGEON and stop attempts at rewriting history. Foodie 377 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Get consensus, do not order us. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So what was the edit? Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

PAF loss count (per India)

India seems to have officially revealed the number of PAF assets it claims to have shot down (via surface-to-air missiles) or destroyed on ground (via air-launched cruise missiles). CDS earlier told that the military will "take out this particular data (on number of Pakistani planes shot down) and share it with you (media)". Sources: [42], [43]. The count stands at least 6 PAF fighter jets, one C-130, 2 "high value aircraft", over 10 UCAVs and 30 missiles.

Other details:

1. One of the "high value asset" was reportedly taken down by S-400 Sudarshan at a range of 300km. The other was confirmed to be Saab 2000 AEW&CS at Bholari base.
2. ANI also wrote "There are inputs about presence of fighter jets also in the hangar but since the Pakistanis are not even taking out debris from there, "we are not counting the fighter aircraft losses on ground", they said."
3. C-130 was lost to a drone strike on ground.
4. Surface-launched BrahMos was not used in the Operation.
5. Multiple Wing Loong series drones were lost during a strike on a hangar by Rafale and Su-30MKI.
6. Further analysis are underway by IAF

Sources: [44], [45], [46], [47]

I think we should add these info under per India sections. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

All the provided sources were from indian media, known to falsify information, going as far as the capture of capital Islamabad and destruction of Karachi sea port, can't use them as sources, need RS 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's not generalize traditional/Broadcasting media of both countries with digital legacy media. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

So which country will publish the Indian military's data? Norway? The sources are clearly from the Armed Forces. And the fog of war has settled. This must be added. Aviator Jr (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

When RS report, it'll be added 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 04:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

India Today, Deccan Herald and Economic Times are all RS. Aviator Jr (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about Deccan herald, but the other two for sure did post fabricated stories during the conflict, the articles are now deleted, that's sufficient reason to consider them unreliable at least in the context of the Indo Pakistani question, secondly, the claims haven't been made by indian government but rather by anonymous sources, that alone would've been enough rationale to not consider them "Indian claims" 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 06:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aviator Jr So which country will publish the Indian military's data?, this is not Indian military's data; it is Pakistani military's data, and he is merely trying to one-up Pakistan after being trolled and pressurised for admitting Indian jet losses. How odd is it that he acknowledged India's jet losses few days ago but did not provide a number, yet when it came to Pakistan's figures, he suddenly knew every nitty-gritty detail. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting how you are giving importance to your own analysis when Wiki doesn't accept author or analyst's own publications as citations (WP:PRIMARY). So it isn't your call what is "odd" and what isn't. Neither did you give a proof to support whether his acknowledgement and announcement has connections or not. Nor did you think whether the announcement had been scheduled from earlier on or not. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the CDS was unable to withstand the trolling and pressure following yesterday's acknowledgment of the Indian jet losses. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And? How's this relevant. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Srimant ROSHAN Because it is evident that he is trying to one-up Pakistan after facing trolling and pressure following his admission of Indian jet losses, I don't think we can trust figures provided under such pressure. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that this announcement was not actually scheduled or pre-planned? It is funny how you say the military was pressurised by media. There were actually some unverified reports 2-3 weeks earlier that IAF was analysing these data. So, firstly, there was no pressure on him, secondly, "acknowledgment of the Indian jet losses" has no relation with this. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a statement by the CDS nor is it official, so it isn't going in anyhow. Though if it was, our own OR analysis of why it isn't accurate would be irrelevant and have no bearing to disclude it. Let us not get into WP:FORUMy territory here. Gotitbro (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Anon sources are not going in, either let the official claims come in or the media make an independent assessment. And for the latter only the body would be a suitable place not the ib, which is meant only for official claims. Gotitbro (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

To be an Indian claim, it has to have been made (yet again? we have been here before) by the government, officially. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The source here is the Indian military. The details were published within hours of the announcement of "take(-ing) out this particular data" by the CDS. This is not a speculations but an analysis by IAF. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yet again, unofficial claims not supported by RS 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

OK let's see the quote from the Indian MOD. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Anything appended by "sources" is not an official claim no matter which way we want to spin it. Gotitbro (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Newspaper like statement

@Kautilya3 and the resulting explosion and flames caused mass panic in the densely populated area, you restored this WP:NEWSPAPER-style statement yesterday after I had removed it. Could you please explain why it is necessary and what encyclopaedic value it provides? Explosions and flames are a normal occurrence in a missile strike of this nature, and they can understandably cause panic among people. Why must this be included in a Wikipedia article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy you linked doesn't talk about anything called "NEWSPAPER-like statements". That seems to have been a policy you have made up yourself. Nothing says that the impactful events should not be explained to the readers. Until all this happened, even I didn't know that there was an airbase in a densely populated area. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 The policy you linked doesn't talk about anything called "NEWSPAPER-like statements". It definitely does: However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not: Read point number 2 (News reports) — this statement reads exactly like one. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that explaing the impact of impactful events counts as "news". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 What impact does it convey by stating that the missile strike caused an explosion and flames, and that the explosion and flames caused panic? This falls under WP:TRIVIAL and is also written in a news-like style per While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Since we disagree on whether this falls under WP:NOT or not, I can either seek a WP:3O or invite a neutral editor, such as User:Cinderella157, who has previously helped us resolve a dispute—provided you're not concerned about canvassing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I removed "mass panic", retaining "huge explision" and "densely populated area".

You call this "WP:TRIVIAL", but no such thing was witnessed in any of the supposed airbases PAF "destroyed" or the supposed "Adampur missiles" that fell into Amritsar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 The absence of reporting does not necessarily mean that something did not happen; it depends on whether independent media were granted access to the area. I still believe the entire statement is unwarranted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, independent media would not be granted access to the airbases. But if something did strike them, the explosions would be seen from afar. All these bases are close to towns. And, Amritsar is a very large town and the entire Indian Punjab is densely populated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 So how would we, as Wikipedians, come to know about the "explosions" if independent media were not given access? Given the track record of Indian media, we cannot expect them to report on them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I still think causing a huge explosion in a densely populated area. reads like WP:NEWSPAPER and unnecessary WP:TRIVIAL statement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have listed the dispute at WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I believe that causing a huge explosion in a densely populated area is an WP:UNDUE level of detail. Per Sheriff, it falls under WP:Too much detail. In comparison, none of 7 July 2005 London bombings, October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, or April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel (the first three examples of blasts in densely populated areas I thought of) describe the explosions, characterize the population density of their locus, or describe the resulting panic in the immediate aftermath. I also note that Gedera, hit in the Oct 2024 attacks, is within an order of magnitude of population density, so I think it's a fair comparison. While it's true that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think this demonstrates that explosions and panic are an expected outcome of a strike, and generally not mentioned without significant coverage to establish WP:DUE weight. The cited article has only one paragraph mentioning that panic exists, and appears to be an incidental mention. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck:, thanks your input. I agree these are valid comparisons, and I will delete the description. Thanks again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Thank you for your feedback! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Why have the Casualties/ Losses been deleted from main infobox

This is standard for every conflict. Why has it been deleted? Foodie 377 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Some progress before we restore the casualties with only those figures that were supported by independent reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I agree. This is what will eventually take off the "neutrality" banner off the article.

Plus the casualties section from non verified sources was so long, it read like a multicuisine restaurant's menu Foodie 377 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We almost got to the state of "and a room was blown up in Rawalpindi". It was far too "WE BLEW THIS UP". Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I never read infoboxes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So then why have casualties there at all then? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Every war/conflict has an infobox, so the main points including the losses are summarised Foodie 377 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So who deleted it? and who is cleaning it up and then restore it? any Idea? Foodie 377 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: proposed this above and received no opposition. I reiterate my support for this move. We can and should wait for better sources to arrive, and the claims list was quite something. Gotitbro (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro, so I propose we leave the infobox with only the 3rd party sources info in it. I see no issue with that. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@GotitbroI will be restoring the Infobox only with 3rd party claims for now. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Foodie 377: Don't make unilateral edits here, what was achieved through discussion should be changed through it as well. No we are not relying on in-conflict news media to blare out claims in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@GotitbroOk, fine. so I am saying only include the genuine 3rd party section. Are you saying that at this time there are ZERO 3rd party WP:RS that cannot be included in the infobox? Foodie 377 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro every war/conflict has an infobox.

I see that you have written above that you completely want to do away with the infobox. I do appreciate your immense contribution to this article. But this statement of yours is borderline policing. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree that the infobox should just be deleted UNTIL more sources appear. It is always going to be WORK IN PROGRESS. For now, It should be restored with 3rd party sources immediately and then we can add as and when more 3rd party/independent sources become available in due course. Completely removing it does not seem fair especially when there are confirmed 3rd party WP:RS sources which are not India or Pakistan based. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We are not saying that, just do not include casualties until the dust has cleared we we have proper third-party analysis (significantly post-conflict). Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. but who defines when "the dust is gonna settle"? 2 months from now? 6 months from now? or a year from now? it is very vague

There are already proper 3rd party sources that have been listed. Do you see any issues with that?

Also this seems to be a "rogue edit" bordering on WP:VANDALISM.

Searching through the History of the page, I do not see a single comment saying removing "infobox". That was a sneaky move whoever did it.

And no CONSENSUS was reached. I do not see a single discussion on Talk before this table was removed unilaterally. Infact, I just started this discussion today when I saw that infobox was deleted.

I am proposing to restore the infobox to include only 3rd party sources and keep adding as we go. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not wait 2 months, we are not a newpaper. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. What is the objection to 3rd party WP:RS. If it is there now, we can put it there now.

Just remove the whole Indian and Pakistani sources Foodie 377 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Becasue if they are too close to the event, they are relying too much on official sources. We need to allow time for proper analysis. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"Casualties/losses in infobox" discussion has been up for more than a week and from the looks of it many are in agreement with the removal. Nothing sneaky about it and you shouldn't cast Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS.

Infoboxes aren't the most important thing about articles, many even do away with them entirely. What we have here is a bunch of highly contradictory claims and assertions with only partial verification by 3PARTY sources. We can wait for more academic non-news and indepth sources to emerge and include them first in the body, then go about the same for the infobox, which as of now adds nothing of value. You can restore the content but it would be futile and ultimately serve no purpose. Gotitbro (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Nothing sneaky about it and you shouldn't cast Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS - There is nothing wrong with garnishing more opinions on the removal of a section that was being worked on by a lot of users. نعم البدل (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, it is the word choice I was pointing out though. An open discussion thread open for more than a week is not "sneaky". Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing that editors here haven't noticed is that some of these news articles especially from the Indian side get deleted once they're proven wrong or labelled as fake news it's frustrating, this seems to be a practice in Indian media houses(don't have any evidence only my anecdotal experience) they don't own up their mistake instead they quietly delete the story from their website. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• The proposed edit to remove casualties from the infobox was made at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Casualties/losses in infobox. The proposal is P&G based. It received support and no dissent, and was only acted upon after a reasonable time for comment. To the statement: This is standard for every conflict, this is an optional parameter per Template:Infobox military conflict which is often but not always used - ie when it is not appropriate to use this parameter or not appropriate at this point in time. I would refer to Russian invasion of Ukraine as a high profile article where this parameter is not used. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: These brief discussions should be expanded. An RFC should have been opened up for such an edit, considering it was something a lot of editors worked on. Yes, while this is an optional parameter per Template:Infobox military conflict which is often but not always used, every Indo-Pak conflict has the parameter, which summaries the casualties. You're using Russian invasion of Ukraine as an example, though the two articles aren't comparable. The Russo-Ukraine war is still ongoing, whereas the Pak-Indo conflict has already concluded. The Russian invasion also has an entirely seperate article on the casulties of the ongoing war, where correct me if I'm wrong, there is no such alternative here, apart from the article content themselves. نعم البدل (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is nothing that says WP:CONSENSUS can only be achieved trough an RfC (quite the contrary) or that and RfC should or must be used in an instance such as this. Stating: every Indo-Pak conflict has the parameter, is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument of no inherent weight in itself. Casualties in the infobox of the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 is particularly bloated and a very poor example to rely on. This has long been on my to-do list to correct but the solution is far from simple. The ongoing nature of the the Russian invasion of Ukraine is only one of the reasons why this parameter is not used there. Another is the nuance and detail (who sad what), which is directly comparable and a degree of uncertainty persists here because the conflict is only recently over. The Russian invasion of Ukraine does have a section dealing with casualties where this nuance and detail can be better dealt with - not just a daughter article. The daughter article was created to reduce the main article size. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE would state, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. [C]orrect me if I'm wrong, there is no such alternative here, apart from the article content themselves. The body of the article is where we should be addressing content on casualties in the first instance - regardless of whether there is an infobox or not. An article must remain complete without the infobox. Furthermore, in writing an article, one should write the article before summarising it in the lead. An infobox is a supplement to the lead and the same applies. Ther are stong P&G based reasons for removing this at this time - noting that it is not a permanent removal. Arguments like: other stuff exists, I don't like it or I think it should be there, are not P&G based and are not a substantive reason for returning it at this time and certainly not in its present form. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added a section link to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Casualties in the relevant section of the infobox for the purpose of directing viewers, as well as avoiding the possibility of misleading viewers into thinking the absence of a casualty section implies the absence of casualties. 9³ (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Moved here from older section 03:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

My above edit was reverted by @Cinderella157: citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says Avoid links to sections within the article. According to a 2020 discussion this addition was unilateral and resulted in no consensus whether to keep the wording or not, where one in favor of keeping it noted that "Avoid" is a soft normative phrase. Avoiding intra-article links is a infobox best practice, not a hard rule."

Template:Infobox military conflict itself says to Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim. A 2023 discussion at the infobox pointed out that it conflicts with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE yet it still stands because specific infoboxes may determine whether or not to follow the WP:MOS, which itself states in its second line Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Many conflict infoboxes direct readers to Casualties/Aftermath sections where they are controversial or are otherwise difficult to summarize.

In short, the infobox is extremely small as it is, and adding a single line to tell readers at a glance that casualties indeed occurred seems a reasonable middle ground between implying the conflict was a bloodless nothingburger and listing every fighter jet downed and dam damaged. 9³ (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Dossiers

These are the Pakistani ([48]) and Indian ([49], [50], [51]) dossiers outlining respective official claims and narrative. Useful as reference points. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

According to these dossiers these were places targeted by drones.

Per Pakistan: Attock, Bahawalnagar, Chakwal, Chhor, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Hyderabad, Jhang, Karachi, Lahore, Miano, Peshawar, Rahim Yar Khan, Rawalpindi, Shourkot and Sukkar.

Per India (7-8 May): Adampur, Amritsar, Awantipura, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Jalandhar, Jammu, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Nal, Pathankot, Phalodi, Srinagar, Uttarlai and Bhuj.

Will see if this can be added somewhere in the body. Gotitbro (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The official Pakistani documentary on the conflict: [52]. Gotitbro (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Strike tables

We currently have 3 (!) wikitables listing the various places the parties claimed to have struck in their operations. This is essentially (mostly) unverified bloat that we should better do away with on the same rationale that casualties were removed from the infobox (uncertainty, fog of war etc). There is no reason to retain this while removing essentially the same stuff from the infobox. I propose we remove all of these tables. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I concur, and I believe that in a previous discussion, most editors agreed—except for one who insisted that the 7 May table must be retained. It is difficult to ensure WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE when the parties to the conflict have opposing claims. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's bloat (and puffery), but we either keep all or remove all (my preferred option). Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Strike package

Acc to Indian media sources the initial strikes on May 7 had

• 19 Brahmos
• 19 SCALP
• M-777 howitzers
• At least 4 Crystal Maze

And response strikes might have used CM-400 AKG on JF-17

Refs

• https://www.news18.com/videos/world/india-to-restock-weapons-after-19-brahmos-4-crystal-maze-were-fired-on-pakistan-op-sindoor-9375011.html
  
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/19-brahmos-crystal-maze-missiles-details-of-how-india-brought-pakistan-to-its-knees-during-operation-sindoor-101749345012318-amp.html
  
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/india/india-used-19-brahmos-to-smash-11-pakistan-airbases-during-operation-sindoor/ar-AA1GhTlZ
  
• https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/indian-air-force-fired-19-brahmos-at-pakistan-airbases-crystal-maze-wiped-out-lashkar-hq-new-operation-sindoor-details-out-13104154.html/amp

Shoul this be mentioned? RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure this really tells as anything other than adding even more bloat. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

we can write it in the intro as a strik pack of this targeted these installations, it's given in msn RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This would go somewhere in the timeline. But reports based on anon sources are not going in. Sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Pakistani targets supported by Indian government sources

@Gotitbro Why is this source necessary? [] It does not even support a single location mentioned in the sentence starting with Gulpur and ending with Sarjal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

These are given in the Hindi-language text. Also used to add that civilian targets were avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Then that is what you should have used. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The Hindi-language text and the civilian bit appear in the same ref/link. Gotitbro (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Use just that, its avoids wp:v issues. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Even in the Hindi text, Gulpur's association with HuM is not mentioned, nor is the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque. Mehmona Joya is cited as being in Sialkot District rather than Narowal. The other source—the PDF hosted by CGI in Istanbul—gives off the impression of being a propaganda document. I don’t think we should be using primary government sources for these claims. These matters are now covered by secondary sources, and if secondary sources do not lend credence to such claims, then Wikipedia should not serve as a vehicle for propaganda from either the Pakistani or Indian governments via primary government sources. If a secondary source covers a government claim, that implies the claim has sufficient notability and value to merit coverage. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Mehmona Joya is indeed in Sialkot and Sarjal is the one in Narowal; it was in the right order but your recent edits appear to have mixed them up (fixed this). I have added secondary/non-governmental sources as well for other concerns raised (note: Gulpur is mentioned as "Maskar Rahil Shahid" in some sources, the alleged name of the camp).

Though primary sources, as clarified at RSN, are no problem when we are using them for basic claims and can stay; regardless of whether they are perceived to be "propaganda" documents [I would say official claims]. In the end their limited use for stating a party's position is absolutely alright.

I have even linked other Pakistani and Indian dossiers above which as I note can be further used to elucidiate down the claims like strikes, locations etc. Gotitbro (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you have to use primary sources? If the info is important enough, then it must have been covered by a secondary source. Orientls (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Mostly for WP:V, the info is indeed already covered by secondary sources but with primary you have the benefit of consolidation and seeing the claims as is. While secondary sources are always preferable, tertiary and primary sources aren't barred and this is actually a good use case example of how primary sources need be used, not for analsysis/synthesis but laying out the claims as is. Gotitbro (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

References

False flag

@SheriffIsInTown: This addition is clearly undue, not one single academic on Kashmir, South Asia or jihadist groups believes the oft repeated false flag allegations to be true nor pay any heed to it. I get adding official Pakistani claims but to try and legitimize it by adding original commentary from a dubious article by the Daily Pakistan (no byline and full of unsubstantiated ridiculous claims with bigoted comments to boot) is not something we are going to do.

Pakistan [and the article] claims that the Ganga hijacking (planned by Pakistan-based AJKLF members), Parliament attack (directly claimed by the LeT), 26/11, Uri, Pathankot (directly claimed by the UJC), Pulwama (directly claimed by JeM) all were false flags and we pay no heed to this at their respective articles simply because it is conspiratorial, undue and WP:FRINGE, the weight of reliable and academic sources is simply against this.

It can be argued whether the false flag allegations are due at all, but a basic mention as an official claim should be fine. Gotitbro (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Government WP:PRIMARY sources should be used either to provide information about themselves or to make claims regarding their own accomplishments. They can't be used to throw dirt on the others, unless reliable WP:SECONDARY sources took cognizance of those claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Al Jazeera is a secondary reliable source quoting the Defence Minister of Pakistan. We can include that claim in the same manner as we include other claims made by both India and Pakistan. If one country blames another for an attack, then the official response from the other country should also be included. Which policy establishes that government claims should only pertain to themselves or their own accomplishments? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally meant to be written based on WP:SECONDARY sources. We use WP:PRIMARY sources in exceptional circumstances, where only then can provide (presumably accurate) information about themselves. When they make claims about others, they are acting in a SECONDARY capacity and nobody accepts them as being reliable for that purpose. Even to make attributed statements, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT come into play. Only when WP:INDEPENDENT sources take cognizance of those claims can they be even considered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 If the Background section mentions the Pahalgam attack as having been orchestrated by groups based in Pakistan, then it is warranted to include Pakistan's official stance on the attack for the sake of WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV, provided it is supported by a secondary source. In this case, Pakistan's official position is indeed supported by a secondary source—Al Jazeera. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 These edits are reading like WP:SYNTH even when they are attributed. Similar to their recent removal of my comment from this section and shifting it to a new one per their pov/title, WP:NPOV is also the issue here. This article is not military announcement update site which these edits read like. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 04:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If the official response from that country is a plain denial, then it amounts to them making claims about themselves. If it is a counter-allegation, it is going beyond that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 If one country can make an allegation against another and we include that, then by the same standard, a counter-allegation should also be included. If a country's official stance regarding an allegation is that it was a false flag operation orchestrated to blame them, then there is nothing wrong with including that. We are not presenting it in Wikipedia's voice; we are citing it as a claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

We haven't "one country" (India) allegations that weren't mentioned by SECONDARY sources, have we? That is an invalid comparison.

The Al Jazeera source that you have cited hardly fits the bill. It included a video statement of Pakistan defence minister and merely added a title with enough distancing, by using "claims" and "false flag operation" in scare quotes. That too in a livefeed, not in a regular news article. That doesn't amount to taking cognizance of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I don't believe there is anything wrong with citing the Al Jazeera source, but here is another secondary source as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I checked the Daily Pakistan source. It doesn't report any government source claiming it. Rather, it itself is claiming it. It is labelled a "Special Report", and contains only speculative theories. It is not appropriate to cite it as per WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

So, looking into it - the statement is cited to Khawaja Asif who had earlier stated that the attack was perpetrated by local Kashmiri militants. Looks like he changed his mind and so did the Pakistani government. Though there is a hiccup in this as well, as in other statements Pakistan continues to call for independent investigations without referring to a false flag. There is no uniformity or firmness in these claims, considering that we don't include such fringe allegations in articles for the previous crises as well, I think a removal is warranted. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro This statement was made by the Defence Minister of Pakistan and is as official as it can be. It should be included as an official Pakistani claim, in the same way that Indian claims alleging Pakistan-based militants behind the attack are included. If the background section mentions the Pahalgam attack—and since Pakistan is a party to this conflict—we must also include Pakistan's official stance on the attack to ensure compliance with WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. We cannot leave that section one-sided. The Defence Minister does not need to describe the attack as a false flag in every statement; it is the official position of the Pakistani government that the attack was a false flag, which is why they have openly called for an independent third-party investigation. On what basis do we determine which claims are warranted for inclusion and which are not? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE exist as well. 9/11 "truthers" continue on their conspiratorial tirades, including officials from numerous involved governments. Do we pay any heed to them? No.

The attack is indeed seen to be the work of TRF despite its later retractions ([53]), this isn't really a thing debated among RS.

And as noted above, we do not include such conspiratorial claims for the numerous previous attacks which are claimed to be false flags as well. This simply goes against precedent.

PS: And FWIW, I am yet to find a statement from the MoFa or other similar authority which makes these claims explicitly. Gotitbro (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro We are not presenting a conspiratorial claim; we are citing an official statement made by the party accused of harbouring the attackers. This is neither false balance nor a fringe theory. The TRF retracted its statement, and it is not even clear whether the individuals who initially claimed responsibility were genuinely affiliated with the group. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No one actually questions whether the TRF actually carried out the attack, the opposite is true for attribution (read Abrams detailed analysis above why militant groups retract claims). The LeT tried to claim that 26/11 attacks were not done by it as well, all academics say otherwise and allegations of false flag there are indeed treated as conspiracy theories.

This here is conspiratorial as well.

And as I argue this is barely an official position (more of a narrative hat tip rather than a genuine claim otherwise you would see statements from MoFA and the like not slapshot allegations by some ministers here and there and the state media). Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro There are two parties to the conflict, and we are including Pakistan's official position regarding the basis of this conflict. This is not an offhand remark by just any minister — it is a statement by the Defence Minister of Pakistan, and therefore constitutes an official position, unless contradicted by another Pakistani government representative stating that the attack was not a false flag and that groups from Pakistan were involved. Here is another source that reflects Pakistan's unified stance that it was a false flag operation. If this cannot be included, then many Indian claims in the article — which are solely based on government sources — should also be removed. For example, all the sites mentioned as being linked to terror groups, from Gulpur to Sarjal, are based entirely on a government claim supported by a propaganda document hosted at CGI in Istanbul and another transcript. If the standard is that government claims unsupported by independent sources are to be excluded, then that standard should be applied uniformly, not selectively against Pakistani government claims. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't try and club different issues together, we are not going around in circles again about the initial strikes neither am I questioning the addition of later military claims. But when a slide is made into conspiracy laden claims of false flags about veritable terrorist attacks, that is obviously going to be objected when we have no precedent for this for similar claims for previous attacks at their articles.

And as I have already clarified this is barely an official claim at all made by no substantial Pakistani authority. Bring better sources, the Dawn source talks about politicians not the government and makes no mention of Asif's false flag statement. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: We do not care what non-cabinet politicians have to say when we are adding official claims, they have no say in it. So the Dawn source is a no go. Australia Today is a random website and is definitely not RS, we have no idea who runs it. It is definitely not a known Australian newspaper, please vet your sources before you add them (first the Daily Pakistan gaffe now this). The statement from the PM looks good. But I maintain my original position of how undue the whole thing is, given past precedent.

I would also like to comment about your other recent additions, which increasingly appear to be POV. I remember the conversation a while ago where we laid out that unsubstantial statements, claims etc. from [non-government] politicians are completely undue. You have added these from the Indian opposition and Rahul Gandhi seemingly criticizing Indian actions, at the same time adding laudatory resolutions from the Pakistani National Assembly (note: there is no dearth of criticism by Pakistani politicians to their government's response). You have further split these into an entirely new section. I will be removing this lest we have a litany of grievances listed out by either opposition, this is just POV bloat. Gotitbro (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I added the documentary link above to look at the claims made by Pakistan for the conflict as a reference point, the documentary is not just about Pahalgam it is about the whole conflict, it should definitely not be used to substantiate or add to the fringe non-military claims here especially when the whole addition is itself under question. If you are not willing to discuss things on the Talk page do not exacerbate them by piling onto the problematic stuff with more problematic cruft. And the unanimous removal of the tag is not happening unless as you still have not explained why we should part with precedent for all past conflicts.

I have gone ahead and removed the political bickering, we should not be going near this bloat anywhere in our article. Gotitbro (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Let us look at what 3PARTY sources who actually talk about the false flag allegations have to say about them.

• Joshua T. White, Center for Asia Policy Studies, Brookings Institution [54]: "India quickly and credibly claimed that the attacks were carried out by a front group affiliated with the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), while Pakistani sources asserted, implausibly, that it was a false flag operation."
• Network Contagion Research Institute [55]: "To quantify the spread of false flag conspiracy theories, the NCRI’s open-source monitoring documented a surge in hashtags and keywords promoting the false flag theory in Pakistan’s online sphere, which were subsequently collected between April 22 and May 6, 2025."

As I was saying these are fringe/conspiracy laden claims which no one has ever taken seriously. They shouldn't be up in the article as precedent tells and definitely piling on the fringe is not going to work. Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Brookings is categorised as a commentary piece, and the other source is not reliable either. In my view, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) is a non-academic think tank that publishes reports in an advocacy context. Their publications are neither peer-reviewed nor subject to a rigorous editorial process. Moreover, their reports are self-published. Wikipedia generally does not accept self-published sources for contentious material. Therefore, I believe the POV tag is unwarranted and should be removed, as the content in question is simply a claim made by Pakistan and has been properly attributed as such. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It matters less whether it is commentary or not as it is not being used to add content to the article (and can still be used under SPS but as I say the whole thing needs to go). But the Brooking assessment does tell is where things stand with the false flag pablum.

NCRI is a well known RS and is widely used on enwiki, your assertions of it being SPS and without oversight are baseless.

And precedent matters, we cannot throw past conduct out the window when the exact same content that was rejected in the past is now being coddled for addition here. Gotitbro (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro It does not matter whether a source is being used for content or for discussion — the implications remain the same. If a source cannot be used without attribution in article content, it should not be used in discussion to support an argument either. Regardless of whether NCRI is considered reliable, the document in question focuses on online social media campaigns. However, the content we are discussing here is attributed to the Defence Minister and Prime Minister of Pakistan, and has no connection to any online or social media narratives. As for past articles, each conflict has its own context and is covered differently by reliable sources. Therefore, arguing that something should not be included here simply because it was not included in previous articles falls under the WP:OTHERCONTENT fallacy. Editorial decisions should be based on the merits and sourcing of the content in this article, not precedent from unrelated cases. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro What does this article have to do with past conflict articles? If something was not included in earlier articles, that does not justify its removal from this one. Is there any policy that states all articles must contain the same content? Regarding the documentary-related content, I believe it can be added to the "Aftermath" section once we agree to restore that section following the discussion in the other thread. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

A 3O can work here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro They will decline it because Kautilya3 has already expressed their view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Hi, I checked your recent edits and it seems like you are continuously adding similar non-npov stuff/claims.

You are an experienced editor and this page is already as conflicting as one can be. According to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), No. 15 Squadron, also known as the Cobras, was responsible for shooting down six Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets. Operating out of PAF Base Minhas in Kamra with J-10C multirole fighters equipped with PL-15 beyond-visual-range missiles, the squadron reportedly downed three Rafales, a MiG-29, a Mirage-2000, and a Su-30MKI. The PAF said that the Rafales were deliberately prioritised as targets due to their perceived status as "game changers" in the IAF's inventory. The Cobras, one of the PAF's most storied units, deployed 18 aircraft for the intercept operation. The PAF said that the pilots involved would be publicly named and honoured in a formal ceremony This is directly OR/non-npov even if backed by one-sided sources.HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 01:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This is in addition to the above edit; plus, discuss before editing/shifting comments not made by you per your pov!

you are continuously adding similar non-npov stuff/claims. You are an experienced editor and this page is already as conflicting as one can be.

this wasn't raising another discussion but highlighting a similar concern and from such edits, you seem to continue doing this without even discussing. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 04:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

When the only 3PARTY sources covering this dismiss it, it should show how much weightage sources covering the conflict have given it. NCRI is as good as it gets its primary purpose is to track disinfo after all, the Brookings analysis as well (when we already cite other SPS to substantiate different claims, we cannot dismiss similar analysis).

I have already given the rationale why the politico stuff is pablum and why there is no reason to deviate from precedent, this isn't really a nod to other stuff but why nothing new has come up to dismiss past agreements in the same topic space. Asking for parliamentary sessions or the opposition coming up with political quips is not significant at all. The same goes for heftless parliamentary resolutions. We aren't cherry picking and placing political whistling or cheerleading in an already bloated article. Where do we start and stop, do we start adding all the praises and criticisms each government's actions have received from political parties, the felicitations given, the celebrations etc., there is no end to the bloat that can ultimately be added which is ultimately insubstantial for a conflict article. Actual impacts like political/policy/military/doctrinal changes among others may be justified for inclusion not this. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I believe we've reached a stalemate here — we're simply going in circles at this point. I'm willing to proceed with dispute resolution through DRN. My only objection at this stage is the unjustified tag you restored; aside from that, I'm fine with the current wording regarding the false flag claim. The "Aftermath" content can be discussed separately in its own section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I expect that going straight to an RFC will be more useful than DRN at this point. DRN is useful when editors are caught in a discussion of several different related questions at once and need help teasing out concrete points of dispute that can then be addressed. In your case, however, there seems to be pretty clear disagreements that can easily be posed to the community as a yes/no or multiple choice question in an RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I am opposed to neither. Gotitbro (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that RfC is better.

I am sorry that I haven't been more participative in this discussion. But it is clear that we are going simply in circles. But to address the point about the {{POV statement}} tag, it is there simply because not enough WP:INDEPENDENT sources validated the claim. If and when independent sources are found, they can be cited and the tag removed. Pakistani sources don't fit the bill because the state-owned Associated Press of Pakistan has circulated the claim, also declaring that it is "widely believed", and so all Pakistani newspapers can be expected to parrot it irrespective of whether they believe it or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding NCRI, I accept that it is not qualified to assess whether it is a false flag operation or not. But it is perfectly well-qualified to analyse how the narrative was created and spread through mass media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

@Gotitbro The content and section you removed from the article lacked any valid policy-based justification for removal. These events clearly took place in the aftermath of the conflict. The National Assembly session was a special session convened specifically in response to this conflict. Similarly, the promotion of General Asim Munir and the extension of the air chief's tenure occurred in its immediate aftermath. The "Impact" section should focus on developments that took place during the conflict itself — not what followed. In contrast, the political storm in India over Donald Trump's role in initiating the ceasefire is part of the aftermath. Rahul Gandhi, as the main opposition leader in India, made statements accusing Prime Minister Modi of surrendering — and since these remarks are directly tied to the conflict and ceasefire, they warrant inclusion. Likewise, the fact that opposition parties in India are demanding a parliamentary session to debate the conflict and its outcome is part of the political fallout and therefore relevant to the "Aftermath". All of this content was backed by reliable sources. Its removal lacks a sound editorial basis, especially when it reflects post-conflict developments directly tied to the event. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Assembly/parliamentary resolutions are a dime a dozen pablum, the only thing that came off that giant para is how great the Pakistani military is. This is bloat which has no real significance at all.

Then you proceed to spin this off into another section all the while solely adding/tacking criticism from the Indian opposition onto it. As I note there is no dearth of politicians criticizing their govts. This should have no place here, we actively removed such cruft from the 2019 crisis as well after it was decided that these statements are quite clearly undue. The same is the case here, I had reminded you of this precedent when Swamy was brought here before.

The only siginificant thing that is then left from the section is the promotion to field marshall (I had originally added this) for which there is no need to spin this off into a separate section.

And you should really discuss things on the Talk page first before trying to boldly make contentious changes in the middle of a discussion. This isn't conducive to the process at all. Gotitbro (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is — an opinion. You did not cite a single Wikipedia policy to justify the removal of the content. As I have already mentioned, the "Aftermath" section is important. It illustrates how the conflict impacted the countries involved in various dimensions — politically, militarily, and economically. It also reflects how the conflict is being interpreted in hindsight within the countries concerned. The first paragraph described what happened in Pakistan immediately after the conflict ended — a session of the National Assembly was convened, and the end of the conflict was celebrated as a victory. The second paragraph noted that, a few days later, the military leadership involved on the Pakistani side was promoted. The third paragraph highlighted how the conflict, and particularly its conclusion, is being perceived in India — with political implications. It showed how the opposition has been criticising the Prime Minister for agreeing to the ceasefire and that no parliamentary session has been held in India post-conflict, despite continued demands from the opposition to allow necessary questions to be raised. Nothing in the content was fabricated — every point was supported by reliable sources. Now, if your concern is with the length or tone of the portion where Pakistani leaders praise their armed forces, I am open to shortening it. For instance, we could simply state that a session of the National Assembly was convened immediately after the conflict ended to celebrate what was viewed by Pakistani leaders as a victory. However, removing the entire section is not a constructive or policy-based solution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

wp:undue, may well be one, do RS link these events? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I don't believe any of these are undue. All the events are directly linked to the conflict. The Pakistani National Assembly session was specifically about the conflict. The criticism by the Indian opposition against Narendra Modi for agreeing to the ceasefire is clearly connected to the conflict, as reported by reliable sources. Similarly, the demand for a parliamentary session in India is also tied to the conflict, and Anil Chauhan's admittance of aerial losses, according to reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

So which edit is in dispute? Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

These are the edits which are in dispute: [56], [57]. Gotitbro (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for a separate section here when most of it is populated by partisan political bloat. Resolutions praisint the military and statements from the political opposition are not important to merit inclusion. All of this especially when you populate it with POV quotes. We specifically removed statements from the opposition for the 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (such as those from Ayaz Sadiq and Fawad Chaudhry etc. and those from India) for the same reason. There is no reason for this bloat. I can wikilawyer by citing various policies (undue etc.) but editorial discretion and precedent here at this very Talk page is enough to avoid the very same bloat that you want to insert. Gotitbro (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Then it becomes your word against mine — you may call it bloat, while I disagree. Once again, we cannot compare apples with oranges. The 2019 episode was nowhere near the scale of the 2025 conflict, and just because something was not included in the 2019 article does not mean similar content cannot be included here. I am not sure which specific statements were deemed unfit for inclusion in the 2019 article, but in my view, the statements under discussion here merit inclusion. So, the question of what constitutes bloat remains subjective — and I don't believe it's fair for one editor's judgment to dominate. I think you should refrain from gatekeeping the article and allow the inclusion of content that is supported by reliable sources and clearly relevant to the topic.

For example, the head of the main opposition party in India has stated that the Prime Minister surrendered at the end of the conflict by agreeing to the ceasefire announced by Trump. That position, backed by reliable sources, reflects significant political fallout and carries encyclopedic value — it is not bloat. Likewise, the continued demands by opposition parties for a parliamentary session to question the government's handling of the conflict — and the government's hesitance to convene one — are directly tied to the conflict's aftermath. This, too, is not bloat; it is relevant, due, and well within the scope of an encyclopaedic article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"unanimously passed a resolution lauding the armed forces for their conduct during Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. The resolution praised the military's "decisive and befitting response" to what was described as Indian aggression, and expressed gratitude to "Almighty Allah" for the military victory. It congratulated the nation on what was termed a "historic triumph" and celebrated national unity and resilience in the face of conflict. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum joined in chants of Pakistan Zindabad, marking a moment of national celebration."... Gandhi said that Modi had capitulated to external influence, saying, "Trump made one gesture from there (the US), picked up the call and said Modiji, what are you doing? Narender surrender. And Modiji said yes sir and followed Trump's instructions."

If you don't think this is problematic cruft then perhaps you should take an off here. Nothing apply or orangy about the very similar insignificant and clearly POV political bloat that you want to add here. Coverage by reliable sources is immaterial when their dueness of the content is under question.

If you have a problem with my conduct take it to whatever forum you please. I have assumed AGF but when editors leave discussions in the middle of it to repeatedly add clearly contentious and POV edits and article content that stresses that assumption. Repeating accusations of gatekeeping and ownership while you keep up with this is not going to help your case. Gotitbro (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro You might have missed my previous comment where I said…Now, if your concern is with the length or tone of the portion where Pakistani leaders praise their armed forces, I am open to shortening it. For instance, we could simply state that a session of the National Assembly was convened immediately after the conflict ended to celebrate what was viewed by Pakistani leaders as a victory. However, removing the entire section is not a constructive or policy-based solution., and some content being under discussion does not mean that the article cannot be improved or expanded with different content. There is nothing POV about this; it is simply your assumption that it is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

When you are adding quotes singing paeans about one side while adding stuff clearly critical of the other. And while both are insignificant cruft (I didn't miss the shortening suggestion), yes that is going to lead one to see POV. Sorry.

In one of the earlier edits, these had followed:

"On 18 May, Pakistan released a documentary film titled Marka-e-Haq, which claimed to expose the Pahalgam attack as a false flag operation by India." [when discussion remains ongoing about the false flag insertion] [...]
"The Cobras, one of the PAF's most storied units, deployed 18 aircraft for the intercept operation."

This is not noting the referential issues which are themselves just as problematic, Daily Times (Pakistan), Australia Today etc. While I did not elaborate above for Times, where I note it "[has] no byline and [is] full of unsubstantiated ridiculous claims with bigoted comments to boot", let me do so here:

For a people enslaved and humiliated for centuries, the partition of 1947 was not just a geopolitical loss – it was a final nail in the coffin of Hindu aspirations to dominate the subcontinent. ... A Hindu-majority India cannot digest the idea that its destiny was shaped and shattered by Muslims. ... Neither India has learned from her mistakes in the past nor Hindus have heeded the lessons of their thousands of years history against Muslims. They need a lesson again and it’s time Pakistan teaches India another unforgettable lesson, if she dares to cross the line.

Stunning anyone would use this article as a source to cite anything.

If you cannot see why these insertions would be seen as problematic, then you should really reassess whatever you are doing here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

New proposal

@Gotitbro Following is the new proposal for the "Aftermath" section. I have shortened the first paragraph. We will move the paragraph related to promotions to this section. I have removed the last sentence from the third paragraph about random Congress leaders; however, Gandhi is the main opposition leader, and his criticism and statement hold encyclopedic value here. I hope we will be able to work something out.

On 12 May, a day after the ceasefire declaration, a session of the National Assembly of Pakistan was convened to celebrate what was regarded by Pakistani leaders as a victory. The government of Pakistan promoted Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir to the rank of Field Marshal on 20 May 2025 citing his leadership during the conflict. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described the military operation as a "remarkable success" and commended Munir's "exemplary courage and resolve". Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad Babar was granted a second tenure extension 'in recognition of his operational excellence' during the conflict.

The announcement of the ceasefire by U.S. President Donald Trump triggered a political controversy in India. On 3 June 2025, Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it was made under pressure from Trump. Gandhi said, "Trump made one gesture from there (the US), picked up the call and said Modiji, what are you doing? Narender surrender. And Modiji said yes sir."

On 3 June, several Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. The Congress party began collecting signatures to formalise the request, urging the government to brief Parliament. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

We are not spinning off an entire section then filling it with mostly political cruft. The impact section suffices for any significant addition.

Political quips like "Narender surrender" are simply not going in. Calling for a special session of the Parliament of India is also not something inherently significantly, which even if held would only be notable if something siginificant came out of it.

I don't really see anything problematic with "On 12 May ... Trump." But would again note parliamentary sessions/resolutions are not really notable. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Let’s discuss the content you are willing to accept. If we are not including the quoted statement by Gandhi, then the first sentence of that paragraph should read: On 3 June, Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump. As for the last paragraph, that is also significant that opposition parties are demanding a session on the conflict while government is hesitant. A separate section titled "Aftermath" is important to cover post-conflict activities related to the conflict. Review the “Impact” section—almost all the content currently there pertains to events during the conflict, except for one paragraph about promotions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A special session is likely to be held later this month and would also regularly follow sometime after that. The ask for a special session specifically isn't specifically tied to Chauhan's statement as well. Any mention of either of these sessions would also anyhow be contingent on a notable outcome. The ask for a session isn't inherently notable and isn't going in (crystal etc). Neither is a separate section, which only adds political insubstantialities and on the onset is politically and POV slanted, acceptable.

I am fine with the rest of the content being included in the impact section. Gotitbro (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here—this is about the government's reluctance to convene a parliamentary session, seemingly to avoid opposition scrutiny over the conflict. It is unrelated to speculation about future developments. While a session might still occur, more than a month has passed since the conflict ended. In a democracy, the absence of a parliamentary session for such a duration after a major conflict with another country is, in itself, of significant encyclopedic value. The source clearly supports that the demand of the session is due to General Chauhan's admission. I am willing to remove the part about Congress collecting signatures, as it may be too detailed. With this adjustment, the final paragraph would read as follows: On 3 June, Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Again asking for a special session isn't itself notable, neither is it tied to Chauhan's statement. The opposition has been asking for it since the Pahalgam attack ([58]) and has since added other reasons for it over time (including Operation Sindoor). A special session is likely to be held later this month and a regular monsoon session would anyhow per law follow in July. This is exactly the kind of thing that falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, among other issues such as notability etc. Gotitbro (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro The opposition has been asking for it since the Pahalgam attack, then we can further expand it to note that the opposition has been demanding a special session since the Pahalgam attack, which served as the trigger for this conflict, but the government has continued to ignore those demands. This makes the issue even more relevant and due for inclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already stated that the resolutions and opposition statements you added are bloat, based on precedent and undue, yet I relented. I am not going to do this for what is inherently crystal and entirely an executive prerogative which I shouldn't have to repeat is anyhow going to take place just a week later. This is my final word on this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

How does internal politics become important in this conflict? Not every parliament has a system like Pakistan's, where no real opposition exists. So, it's obvious that various inquiries will arise, each presenting their own point of view. However, that doesn't mean these claims have any real significance unless the allegations are proven by an independent source. King Ayan Das (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You left the comment without providing a solid reason, and then proceeded to remove content that had already been agreed upon during the discussion. Reliable sources determine what is considered significant. If a reliable source covers a statement made by the main opposition leader—particularly one alleging that the Prime Minister surrendered by agreeing to a ceasefire during a military conflict—it clearly possesses encyclopedic value. This statement is relevant to the subject of the article and warrant inclusion based on its coverage and significance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't take poltical quips to be an inherently opposition position or encyclopedically notable just because an RS happened to cover it. Despite the fact that I do not spend anymore efforts on this, it is still insignificant bloat. Gotitbro (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no relation between any Political statement and the impact of this conflict. King Ayan Das (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das How can you claim that there is no connection to this conflict? Who is to decide whether there is a connection or not? Neither you nor I — it is the sources that determine this. Here are the relevant excerpts from the sources. 'Narender Surrender' - a pointed reference to Gandhi's allegation that PM Modi agreed to a ceasefire with Pakistan following a call from Trump., Party alleges PM Modi yielded to US pressure after Trump call, The controversy erupted on Tuesday when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, speaking at the launch of the party's Sangathan Srijan Abhiyan in Bhopal, claimed that the PM had succumbed to pressure from the United States. "Trump made one gesture from there (the US), picked up the call and said 'Modiji, what are you doing? Narender surrender'. And Modiji said 'yes sir' and followed Trump's instructions," Gandhi said., Rahul Gandhi accuses PM Modi of ‘surrendering’ to U.S. pressure over Indo-Pak ceasefire. Congress leader cites Trump’s alleged intervention, asserts party’s commitment to ideological fight and social justice, Prime Minister Narendra Modi “immediately surrendered” after receiving a phone call from United States President Donald Trump, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said on Tuesday (June 3, 2025) in Bhopal, referring to Mr. Trump’s perceived role in the ceasefire announced between India and Pakistan on May 10.

These sources clearly do not agree with you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this any official primary statement ? I think we should add Indian official statement regarding this conflict's outcome instead opposition's allegation, just like Pakistan ! King Ayan Das (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das It depends on the impact and aftermath in each country, as these can vary. No one is demanding a parliamentary session in Pakistan, as it already took place the day after the conflict. Similarly, no one in Pakistan is speaking of surrender, so the same logic cannot be applied. What goes into the article and what is left out depends on coverage by reliable sources. In this case, reliable sources are linking these developments to the conflict, and they are significant with clear encyclopaedic value. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any problem of adding Pakistan's self-clime victory's paragraph. But I just want to add the impacts of this conflict according to the Indian government and if any problem for that then the Pakistani paragraph should be removed too. King Ayan Das (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das No one is stopping you from adding the perspective of the Indian government — you are free to do so as long as it is supported by reliable sources. However, you should not insist on removing the perspective of the main opposition leader. No one is determining the outcome of the conflict based on Gandhi's statement, but it is significant and merits inclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Impact means which incidents occur for this particular conflict and you want to add a point of view of a non-official(with Indian government) person, regarding the possible presser of USA to this ceasefire (based on his perception). King Ayan Das (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das It was originally intended to be added under a separate section titled "Aftermath". However, the new sectioning was opposed by Gotitbro, who agreed instead to include the modified content under the "Impact" section. It needs to be included, whether under a new section titled "Aftermath" (which I prefer) or within the existing "Impact" section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any official progress regarding the conflict or dispute resolution as of now ? So how the Aftermath section will be arrived ? And you already added the agreed-upon content of Pakistan's self-claimed victory in this section, whereas Gotitbro also opposed adding a politically motivated POV. King Ayan Das (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das Gotitbro agreed to the content that you removed. No politically motivated POV was added—everything included was supported by sources and relevant to the subject. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

References

New update about Rafales!

CEO of Dassault, the manufacturer of Rafales has spoken about the subject. He said that there is not much known right now but no American F-35 or Chinese J series war-aircrafts can down 3 Rafales as claimed. He indicated that once truth comes out, some may be surprised. “We’ll see if there were losses or not, and if the war aims were achieved. When the truth comes out, some may be surprised,” [59] @Gotitbro @Kautilya3 I am occupied in assignments, can either of you check and add it wherever relevant? HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 10:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hardley a neutral source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a primary information in quoted words. It is not any analysis or secondary information. Plus, The Print is not an unreliable source per Wikipedia and similar to other update sources added here. About neutral sources, the consensus here is not neutral itself. Thus, that is not the debate to be raised here. This is one of the most awaited announcements/updates per past month's discussions. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It is also what you would, expect them to say, I note they do not say one was not shot down, only that it could not have been shot down by market rivals. So wp:undue may come into this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It is the same with both Market tactics and war tactics similar to claiming 3 or 5 Rafales down. I don't think we should be discussing what is expected to "they would say" as this is an update just like either side's claims. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have long argued to exclude both sides' claims, but there is a clear commercial COI here, and this does not say none were shot down; in fact, it hedges its bets. This is why it is undue, it adds nothing. And I am not going to back and forth (read wp:bludgeon), so am out of here with a firm no, we are not a press agency for an aircraft manufacturer. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I concur with @Slatersteven on the commercial COI concerns. If the J-10 and F-35 manufacturers came out tomorrow claiming their jets are definitely capable of shooting down Rafales, would we include that too? Jet capabilities are subjective; manufacturers can claim their aircraft are unbeatable or even supernatural, but no jet is invincible. Additionally, WP:CRYSTAL applies to When the truth comes out. Let the truth come out when it does—perhaps Mr. CEO, with access to all the technical data, can enlighten us then so we can update the article accordingly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

HilssaMansen19, I have similar feelings to Slatersteven. The exec does not have information. He is only offering his opinion, which is complimentary to his own product. That would be expected. Nothing useful for us here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it is one of the primary market tactics. I found it similar to various primary claims/additions here. Let's leave it for now until they release a report or some other statements. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 16:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)