Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Hilarious claims by this American %22historian%22

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750669273}}

{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=993ECB7}}

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:

• [https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250512-india-pakistan-conflict-rafale-fighter-jets-shot-down-images-debunked France 24 (Debunking other losses but consonant with one Rafale loss)]: {{tq|Only one French aircraft may have been shot down.}}
• [https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/ Reuters(Based on unknown US officials and written in jargon tone)]: {{tq|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.}}
• [https://aje.io/a5inmx Al Jazeera]: {{tq|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.}}
• [https://www.barrons.com/news/three-indian-fighter-jets-crashed-on-home-territory-cause-unknown-indian-security-source-c8d544c0 AFP (Another unknown source with no hard evidence)]: {{tq|Three Indian fighter jets crashed on Wednesday on home territory, a senior Indian security source said, without giving the cause.}}
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/fighter-jets-india-pakistan-attack/ The Washington Post (Evidence based report)]: {{tq|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)

• [https://directus.gr/apokleistiko-oi-galloi-milisan-gia-ta-rafale-den-katarrifthike-pote-gallos-ebeirognomonas-diapsevdei-tis-pakistanikes-tourkikes-fantasioseis/ 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 [https://www.eurasiantimes.com/no-rafale-crash-in-kashmir-french-expert-debunks/] 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 [https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250512-india-pakistan-conflict-rafale-fighter-jets-shot-down-images-debunked 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.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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 [{{citation |first=Christopher |last=Clary |title=Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 |publisher=Stimson Center |date=28 May 2025 |url=https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/|quote=Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.}}] was published stating {{tq|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.

{{reflist-talk}} 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.{{Cite web |date=2025-05-31 |title=India finally admits it lost fighter jets in clash with Pakistan |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-pakistan-war-rafale-fighter-jet-downed-b2761216.html |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=The Independent |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=31 May 2025 |title=India Confirms It Lost Fighter Jets in Recent Pakistan Conflict |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-31/india-confirms-it-lost-fighter-jets-in-recent-pakistan-conflict?embedded-checkout=true |archive-url= |website=Bloomberg}} 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)

::{{Ping|SheriffIsInTown|JayFT047}} I'll say this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-Srimant_ROSHAN-20250530085500-SheriffIsInTown-20250529161500 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 [https://x.com/OSINTWarfare/status/1921608154808201386?t=o34wRBTUTkGfPSzwCMKwuA&s=19 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 [https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=7283 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)

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 [https://www.nzz.ch/pro/chinesisches-kampfflugzeug-schiesst-einen-rafale-jet-ab-europa-muss-daraus-lernen-ld.1883873] 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 [https://www.nzz.ch/pro/chinesisches-kampfflugzeug-schiesst-einen-rafale-jet-ab-europa-muss-daraus-lernen-ld.1883873 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)

Since {{U|An Asphalt}} has [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1292114952 reverted] the inclusion of more casualties, I would want them to clarify their rationale - as to why it needs an extra 'casualties3' parameter. I have restored the mass removal of contents by {{u|Ecrusized}}, this only causes violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, it made the section negligible. Please discuss these updates. Cheers, Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Those terror camps are not Pakistan's military losses, because they are run by militants not by the state. The same way those damaged buildings in India (such as Gurudwaras) were not Indian military facilities. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Again I have to say, hits on bases are not casualties. Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I intend to restore this as a sectional content [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291800162], having being recently removed, by disregarding IN's statement of being directly involved in this conflict. Any thoughts? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:*{{u|PunjabiEditor69}} was correct with that edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291800162] That is a POV section that has been repeatedly removed, the only sources covering these so called naval deployments are partisan Indian media publications and unreliable sources such as FirstPost, so do not restore it. The third party sources do not provide any significant coverage to these developments to warrant an entire section. Orientls (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:I trimmed the excesses out. Since the navies of both countries are listed in the ib and both partcipated in their press conferences (with the Pakistani DGISPR saying much the same about Indian movements near Karachi), a mention in the body does appears apt. Note much of it is sourced to the UK Telegraph. Gotitbro (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• More non fog of war credible sources:
• [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/may/28/how-social-media-lies-fuelled-a-rush-to-war-between-india-and-pakistan The Gaurdian]
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/28/india-pakistan-nuclear-powers/ The Washington Post]
• [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/05/27/world/chinas-arms-pakistans-war-lessons/ The Japan Times]

Will be adding important stuff in a while. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been a series of edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292210499] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292210803] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1292276320&oldid=1292264479] to the opening paragraph of the action of 7th May, that have altered it significantly without consensus, including upping the downed air losses to 5 (and stating it in wikivoice, which is definitely not reflective of the coverage in RS). It removes the neutral label of "Pakistani-administered Kashmir". It also includes a misleading edit summary here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292206715] to claim they are altering the lead "per source", when that is clearly false.{{cite web|url=https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025_dia_statement_for_the_record.pdf|title=2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment|quote="Following a late April terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi conducted missile strikes on terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan. The missile strike provoked multiple rounds of missile, drone, and loitering munition attacks, and heavy artillery fire, by both militaries from 7 to 10 May. As of 10 May, both militaries had agreed to a full ceasefire."}} Owing to the rather drastic issues with the edits, I have reverted them as non constructive. I'd request @SheriffIsInTown to please discuss why they think these changes are necessary here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs ref that is being cited as a 3PARTY source to project in wikivoice Pakistani claims (130 aircraft involved in dogfight, smaller number of Pakistani aircraft, 5 jets downed) is not an original publication of the center, it is a piece written by Rabia Akhtar who is writing as a visiting fellow and is a Dean (Faculty of Social Sciences) at the University of Lahore; serves as an editor of Pakistan Politico (recent publication "Trapped Next Door: Pakistan’s Dilemma of Living with a Reckless, Nuclear-Armed India") and has directly served in the government of Pakistan (member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Council for foreign policy for Imran Khan). This source is unusable for wikivoicing neutral assesments. Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why is it acceptable to cite the Belfer Center source for {{tq|The attack was presumably carried out by the Rafale aircraft of the Indian Air Force using SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer glide bombs over a 23-minute duration.}} but not to expand on it and cite the same source for {{tq| The attack was carried out by Rafale aircraft of the Indian Air Force using SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer glide bombs, as part of a larger aerial formation that included over 80 Indian aircraft—including Rafales, Su-30MKIs, and MiG-29s—confronted by over 40 Pakistani fighters, including JF-17 Thunders, J-10Cs, and F-16s. The engagement led to the downing of five Indian aircraft.}}? Why the double standard? Either the source is suitable for both the shorter and the detailed statements, or it is not suitable for either. Also, why does it matter if Rabia Akhtar is a visiting fellow? A visiting fellow is typically an academic or policy expert temporarily affiliated with a research institution, such as the Belfer Center at Harvard. In this case, Rabia Akhtar is a recognised scholar in strategic studies and nuclear policy. The article is published by a reputable academic policy institute (Harvard Kennedy School), written by a subject-matter expert, and structured as a policy analysis. This should be considered a reliable secondary—possibly even tertiary—source. It should not matter where the author is originally from; there are both Pakistani and Indian experts affiliated with international institutions like this. Are we going to discredit all of them on that basis? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Her conflict of interest is quite explicit (have detailed this below in the "Aircraft losses again" section as well). She is merely repeating Pakistan's claims from media sources, who unlike her explicitly say these are claims, and you are wikivoicing this; unacceptable. We are not going to willy nilly use any publication just because a supposedly non-involved website appears to publish it. Gotitbro (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Her conflict of interest is quite explicit….She is merely repeating Pakistan's claims from media sources, who unlike her explicitly say these are claims, and you are wikivoicing this; unacceptable.}} As I previously stated, the nationality of an academic is irrelevant. Academics affiliated with major international institutions come from both India and Pakistan, and we cannot discredit them on that basis. An academic may rely on claims made by either India or Pakistan—it does not matter whose claims they consider trustworthy. Per WP:RSN, all reliable secondary and tertiary sources are acceptable. I consider this a highly reliable tertiary source, and if the academic authoring the publication finds Pakistani claims trustworthy, then it is not our place to question that. {{tq|We are not going to willy nilly use any publication just because a supposedly non-involved website appears to publish it.}} Then why are you using it to cite whatever you're citing it for? This is not just any publication—it falls under the Harvard Kennedy School. I mean, what would satisfy your criteria for inclusion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:No claim should be put in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:You did not raise any specific objections to the first paragraph under the May 7 section, nor did the other two editors who commented, so I will explain the changes here and, unless you provide specific objections, I intend to restore the first paragraph under May 7 to my revision. The only objection you raised was that I changed "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to "Azad Kashmir", which you considered non-neutral. In fact, the opposite is true—on Wikipedia, we do not use terms like "Pakistan-administered" or "India-administered"; instead, we use their de facto names, as reflected in the article titles Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, referring to "Pakistan" and "Azad Kashmir" separately implies that Azad Kashmir is distinct from Pakistan, which is not the case de facto, and Wikipedia's naming conventions reflect this. Secondly, the purpose of inline citations is to ensure the content reflects the sources cited; there is no point in having citations if the content does not adhere to what the sources actually state. I did not find the BBC source mentioning 14 locations. Lastly, if the source cites both an Indian and a Pakistani claim, then there is no reason to exclude the Pakistani claim that six locations were struck—doing so would reflect bias, whereas including both maintains balance and neutrality. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your comments about administered are irrelevant, we have used this terminology especially for recent conflict pages since the 2020 Kashmir consensus.

::I will adduce Pakistan's claims of 6 instead of 9 but you have made quite a few changes as well, especially about Muridke and Bahawalpur, I will be reverting this. That the locations were the HQs of LeT and JeM is supported by a lot of uninvolved sources see "Terror infrastructure facilities struck" below). Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have made the change, and added Pakistan's claims/affirmation/denial of the initial strikes. The weight of the sources should let us say in wikivoice that these are LeT and JeM sites [but added alleged to terror camps as that is not universal among sources, note the differentiation between military camp providing arms training aka terror camp and merely sites/HQs related to militant groups]. I also mentioned Pakistani civilian casualties to the lead but removed children and women from the body as I had done previously for India-related casualties [Poonch etc.] in the lead and body, this emotive language was apparently added in the initial back and forth when the article was created and I don't really think it is due. Gotitbro (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The inline source(s) you use to support the content must directly support the content—it's not acceptable to claim that, since thousands of sources consider something a fact, we can simply state it in the article and attach any source inline, regardless of whether it actually supports the content. My revision was precisely supported by the BBC Urdu source. If you wish to include something not supported by that source but believe it is backed by another, then add that other source. Otherwise, ensure that whatever is stated is fully supported by the BBC Urdu source. Also, why remove the claim about women and children if it is supported by the source? If one side claims they hit terror infrastructure and the other claims women and children were killed, then both perspectives must be presented. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Been through quite a few conflict related articles to know when to remove emotive POV from articles. I also removed every single instance of children and women who were killed in Poonch from the body and lead. We already state civilians both sides and that is enough (I was the one who added this to the lead for Pakistan as well which was missing before) i.e. both perspectives are presented NPOV.

:::::The Timeline goes from claim to counterclaim, this consistency is maintained for both sides. We give space to Paksitani claims in the next para as well, but note that RS note without hesitation including ones from Pakistan that LeT and JeM HQs were targetted. This allows us to say this in wikivoice (I have still retained alleged for terror camps which implies arms training something not universal among RS; though see the section below about terror facilities where independent assesments say exactly that). Gotitbro (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|The Timeline goes from claim to counterclaim, this consistency is maintained for both sides.}} Not sure what you mean by that, but if a claim has a counterclaim backed by a reliable source, it should appear right next to the claim for the sake of neutrality—not in the next paragraph. Claims and counterclaims should not be siphoned off. {{tq|note that RS note without hesitation including ones from Pakistan that LeT and JeM HQs were targetted. This allows us to say this in wikivoice}} I would prefer that you add a third-party source that explicitly states this inline, so there are no issues. As of now, in my opinion, this remains solely an Indian claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"Solely an Indian claim", numerous Pakistani and international/3PARTY sources have already been adduced to the article with quotes which say the exact same thing. This is as good it gets to say it in wikivoice (we have already been over this in multiple discussions [see below and archives]).

:::::::About the timeline, this claim/ counterclaim structure is followed all over the article. Even for the Pakistani operation on 10 May, it is not going to be partially altered for a single para. Gotitbro (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{re|SheriffIsInTown}} You removed Pakistani op-eds fine [and though the source you removed by White was directly from a Brookings centre not a guest post but OK], but that should've given you a clue that these are well recognized as LeT/JeM hubs and not merely Indian claims [note the delineation I do above between terrorist camp and their general HQ; of which is definitely the latter]. And then you already have non-Indian sources [e.g. BBC Urdu which directly lists the JeM mosque by name as its HQ] saying the same, any security source will tell you the same. I don't want to adduce past sources but if there is any doubt I can. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And here is another recent one [for LeT]:

:::::::::Le Monde diplomatique [https://mondediplo.com/2025/06/04pakistan-india June 2025]

:::::::::{{talk quote|But it was the first time since the 1971 war that either country’s military had hit locations outside the disputed Kashmir region, with missiles striking Muridke and Bahawalpur, in central and southern Punjab respectively, both areas known for harbouring Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani Islamist group which the UN designates as a terrorist organisation and New Delhi blames for coordinating the 22 April attack with Islamabad’s support.}} Gotitbro (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Long War Journal [https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2025/05/07/india-and-pakistan-exchange-fire-after-jammu-and-kashmir-terror-attack/ May 7, 2025]

:::::::::{{talk quote|India claimed that the strikes killed 70 terrorists in camps operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen. Muridke is the home of the Markaz-e-Taiba, the sprawling terror complex run by Lashkar-e-Taiba.}} Gotitbro (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::[https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/04/lashkar-e-taiba-front-group-claims-responsibility-for-deadly-terrorist-attack-in-jammu-and-kashmir-india.php Long War Journal April 24, 2025]

:::::::::{{talk quote|Markaz-e-Taiba, LeT’s headquarters in Muridke near Lahore, is a sprawling complex used to indoctrinate future jihadists before they are sent off for military training. The provincial government of Punjab has financed Markaz-e-Taiba in the past.}}

:::::::::As I was saying above these may or may not be terrorist training camps i.e. providing arms training but are definitely headquarters/central hubs. Gotitbro (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The BBC (for JeM) and IISS (for both) explicitly list these as HQs and then you have the above. This when I am focusing only on very recent sources. Again a body of past academic literature will prove even more damning. First, I only wanted to show that the view in Pakistan is also much the same, but since those recent Pakistani sources were removed to effect a change 'according to sources' when the sourcces aren't whittling their language at all, I have provided the above. We can go further, but this isn't something that is in dispute among scholars. Gotitbro (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Gotitbro Replying to first comment: {{tq| You removed Pakistani op-eds fine [and though the source you removed by White was directly from a Brookings centre not a guest post but OK]}}, you cannot object to the use of a working paper (Stimson Center) in wiki-voice content while simultaneously adding three sources—categorised as op-ed, commentary, and column—to wiki-voice different content in the same article merely to support your preferred narrative. You should also avoid WP:SYNTH by piecing together elements from multiple sources to state something that none of them independently support. Please choose the single best source from those already cited and include only the content that this source alone supports, in line with the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS of this article. {{tq|but that should've given you a clue that these are well recognized as LeT/JeM hubs and not merely Indian claims}}, if the sources cannot be cited for a factual claim, then the clues they provide are of no value. {{tq| And then you already have non-Indian sources [e.g. BBC Urdu which directly lists the JeM mosque by name as its HQ] saying the same}}, no, you are either misunderstanding the source or deliberately misrepresenting it. The BBC Urdu source clearly states—let me break it down for you—"Jaish-e-Mohammed is also located in Bahawalpur," and "Masadda-ul-Sabir and Jama Masjid Subhan are part of it." The source is saying that Jaish is based in Bahawalpur—got that. Then it says that Masadda-ul-Sabir and the mosque are part of it, meaning part of Bahawalpur. This does not in any way mean that Masadda and the mosque are terrorist camps or part of a terror infrastructure. Bahawalpur has a population of 903,795 and an area of 24,830 km². Not all 903,795 people are part of Jaish, nor does every square foot belong to the group. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I did not say restore the op-eds or opinion pieces (one directly from someone from Muridke and previously under Saeed) but that these recent sources were clearly indicative of where things stand. The objection was not with the removal of sources but with changing content when the remaining sources say much the same. Please don't break the BBC quote to imply it says something else when it doesn't, this is what the BBC says "It may be recalled that the central headquarters of the banned organization Jaish-e-Mohammed is also located in Bahawalpur and Masadda-ul-Sabir [Madrasa is meant] and Jama Masjid Subhan are part of it." It is talking about the headquarters here, as clear as it gets; no one can walk away from this to imply what you are stating. A 3OPINION is going to say much the same.

::::::::::This though is fixation on a smaller issue as other sources beyond the BBC say the same. So I will stop this here. LeT and Markaz are way beyond well attested (as shown above) to the present and if need be more sources can be presented for JeM.

::::::::::About SYNTH, nothing was 'put together' direct quotes were adduced which said things as is. About 'preferred narrative', the corollary may as well apply but I am willing to stake AGF. Gotitbro (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::We have already discussed above why children, women et. al. and other emotives were removed for both sides. The same goes for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293076479 Azhar], and obviously using martyr [regardless of Azhar's words] is also a no go. Gotitbro (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gotitbro I was fairly certain that I had changed "martyred" to "killed", but I mistakenly altered the quoted part. I disagree with your restriction on detailing the casualties; there is no policy prohibiting this. Especially in such a contentious conflict, it is important to provide details of the casualties. We cannot alter what the individual has actually said—if needed, we can place the statement in quotation marks to indicate that it is directly attributed to Azhar. We also cannot describe Huzaifa's mother as one of his associates when Azhar did not refer to her as such. Whether emotive or not, we must remain faithful to the sources. Please cite a policy that prohibits the detailing of casualties. I would prefer we include causality details from both sides to present a clearer picture to the reader, which would better serve the purpose of building an encyclopaedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have seen enough back and forth over this, since the article was created, to know what is better kept out. No gain is to be had by specifically detailing this for a militant. He has exactly said that 4 of his associates and 10 of family were killed, this was already in the article I did not add it, that is reported by sources (e.g. [https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/07-May-2025/1893007]). Looks like the sources were lost somewhere in the middle let me look. Gotitbro (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That was NDTV [removed in the recent edit], anyhow Guardian says the same [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/06/pakistan-india-attacks-kashmir-live-updates], and we have already nawaiwaqt above. The fourth associate attributed in his statement by newspapers is likely his sister's husband and not the associate's mother. Gotitbro (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The Guardian only provides summarised bullet points, but we have other reliable sources that include his detailed statement about who was killed. I believe this detail is encyclopaedic and should be included. You have not provided any policy-based reason for its exclusion if it is covered by reliable third-party sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Gotitbro WP:BLP and WP:BLPVIO apply to the militant as well; we cannot misquote or misconstrue his words. Even "Nawa-i-Waqt" provides specific details about the individuals who were killed, and we must include that information from his perspective in accordance with WP:NPOV. Simply referring to them as "relatives and associates" is inadequate, as it may mislead readers into assuming that the casualties were all adult men, especially since militant activities are typically associated with that demographic. Presenting this vague language obscures the nature of the casualties and creates an inaccurate picture of the event. If Jaish is indeed training women and children for terrorist activities, and this is supported by reliable sources, it is a matter of public interest and should be clearly presented. I also support including casualty details for both India and Pakistan, as both governments have sometimes withheld information regarding civilian deaths, including those of women and children, in cross-border strikes. Wikipedia should not contribute to that lack of transparency. If reliable sources include such specifics, they should be reflected in the article. If there is still disagreement, I am open to initiating a DRN thread. However, we should not omit, obscure, or sanitise essential details. An encyclopaedia must remain clear, comprehensive, and loyal to its sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::While I have come to this late, my understanding is this relates to material in the body and/or notes around [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293076735#cite_ref-89 this] edit. A WP article is written in summary style and is WP:NOTNEWS. When an article is primarily based on news sources, it is our job as editors to sift through all the chaff in such sources to find the kernels of information that should be reported in an article - and without the editorialising. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::::::::::}}

@Cinderella157 The current dispute concerns whether to include the details of casualties attributed to Masood Azhar. India claimed that the location targeted in Bahawalpur was a terrorist training camp, while Azhar provided his own account of the people killed in the attack. Since this was a major target identified by India, I believe it is necessary—per WP:NPOV—to include Azhar's detailed version. I consider the following details essential for readers to understand the full scale of the casualties as attributed to one of the parties in the conflict: {{tq|Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, said that ten of his relatives—including his elder sister, her husband, a nephew and nephew's wife, a niece, and five children—were killed in the Indian missile strike on Subhan Allah Mosque and Madrasa near Chowk-e-Azam in Bahawalpur. He also said that one of his longtime friends, his friend's mother, and two other friends were also killed in the same attack, which severely damaged the mosque and destroyed its dome.{{Cite web |last=Mao |first=Frances |last2=Nangiana |first2=Umer Draz |date=7 May 2025 |title=Militant group chief says relatives killed in India strike |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjewen7w192o |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |date=7 May 2025 |title=بھارتی میزائل حملہ 14 شہداء کی بہاولپور سٹیڈیم میں نماز جنازہ ادا کر دی گئی - روزنامہ نوائے احمد پور شرقیہ |trans-title=Funeral prayers offered for 14 martyrs of Indian missile attack at Bahawalpur Stadium |url=https://dailynaps.com.pk/indian-missile-attack-funerals-of-14-shohda-offered-in-bahawalpur-stadium/ |website=Daily Nawa-e-Ahmadpur Sharqia |language=ur |trans-quote=According to details, the funeral prayers of all those martyred in the sudden attack of Indian missiles on the Subhan Allah Mosque and Madrasa near Chowk-e-Azam were offered at Bahawalpur Stadium, in which thousands of people participated. It should be noted that in the Indian missile attack after midnight last night, Maulana Masood Azhar's elder sister, her husband, scholarly nephew, his wife and scholarly niece, and five innocent children were martyred, while Maulana Masood Azhar's long-time friend Huzaifa and his mother, as well as two other companions, were also killed. As a result of the Indian missile attack, the dome of the Subhan Allah Mosque was also martyred and the mosque was also damaged.}}}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:And that is pretty much what I understood. What other reports do we have regarding these strikes - what they actually struck? What are the key points we have that should be reported in an encyclopedic article. Was Masood Azhar in the mosque too? Here is what the lead says: {{tq|On 7 May, India launched Operation Sindoor with missile strikes on terrorism-related infrastructure facilities of Pakistan-based militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, and said that no Pakistani military or civilian facilities were targeted.[46][47] According to Pakistan, the Indian strikes hit civilian areas, including mosques, and resulted in civilian casualties.}} That is a summary of what the body of the article should be telling us about this. Who the women and children were is immaterial to establishing that women and children were killed and Masood Azhar is not the most reliable (credible) witness. There should be better sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::The article is being updated regularly, so the lead may not fully reflect the content of the body. At present, most of what we have are claims by India and claims by Pakistan, with most reliable sources reporting the assertions made by both sides. Very little has been independently confirmed by reliable third-party sources. As for Azhar's whereabouts, no one has known his location for a long time, and it is unclear whether he was present at any of the targeted locations. {{tq|Who the women and children were is immaterial to establishing that women and children were killed and Masood Azhar is not the most reliable witness. There should be better sources.}} Agreed, a better source would be preferable, but there are not many available. Azhar is not being used as a source himself; rather, he is being quoted as one of the parties to the conflict. If India claims to have killed 70 terrorists and Pakistan claims civilian casualties in the ballpark of 40, neither side provides much detail about those killed. If we are including the claims made by both India and Pakistan, then it is both prudent and neutral to also include Azhar's claim, which is cited by several reliable sources. It is important to include the reported presence of women and children to clarify who, according to one party to the conflict—whom India describes as terrorists—these individuals were. If we include one extreme, we should include the other as well. Otherwise, we might consider removing the claims from all involved parties and relying solely on independent reliable sources, though that would leave us with very limited material to work with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:NOT documents policy and {{tq|[i]t describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.}} Also, it is not good form to reinstate material being discussed when consensus has not been reached for inclusion (WP:VNOT). Masood Azhar is not reporting the number killed but that he knows a number killed which is less than both 40 and 70. This lesser number does not dispute either of the two higher numbers. The number he reports is neither here nor there. If there are other sources reporting that women and children were killed, then we should use probably be relying on those for that point. If this is the only source reporting the death of women and children, then that is what would justify its inclusion. We use it to state: {{tq|it is reported that the attacks resulted in the deaths of women and children}}. Who these were might be newsworthy but that detail is not significant to the point being made and supported by the citation. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not believe this content falls under WP:NOT. When one party claims to have killed terrorists and the other provides detailed information about the individuals killed—information supported by reliable sources—it is encyclopedic to include that detail. The Indian and Pakistani claims pertain to all targeted sites, whereas Azhar is providing details specific to a single site where his relatives and friends were reportedly killed. Azhar's acknowledgment of the deaths of his relatives and friends is being used to support the justification for India's strike—suggesting that because he admits to casualties at that site, the target was legitimate. However, only a portion of his statement is currently being included, which risks misrepresenting his account. I am proposing that either his full statement, including the detailed casualty demographics, be included or that his acknowledgment be excluded entirely to avoid partial and potentially misleading representation. The elderly mother of one of his friends is being shown under the category of his killed associates. Including only selective parts of his claim may give the impression that the casualties were exclusively adult males—a demographic commonly associated with militant activity—which would be a misrepresentation of his account. This selective reporting could constitute a violation of WP:BLP and potentially a WP:BLPVIO, as Azhar is a living person, and his statements must be presented accurately and in context. I would be open to a middle-ground approach: mentioning that the fourteen individuals Azhar claimed were killed include four women and five children. This would help prevent any implication that the casualties were all adult males and ensure a more balanced and accurate representation of the claim. Ultimately, policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BLPVIO should take precedence over WP:NOT in matters involving the potential misrepresentation of a living individual's statements. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|SheriffIsInTown}} The details are immaterial, there is no BLPVIO happening here. Gain consensus here, we are not unnecessarily expanding the statements of someone who is likely unreliable. Note also the fact that local authorities provided quite different figures than Masood [https://www.samaa.tv/2087333028-women-children-among-24-martyred-in-indian-strikes-across-pakistan]. We can add those as well (only figures again). Lastly readers can always check the references for details, I was the one who added the detailed quote for his statement and I am the one who has compiled the only known list of named civilian casualties (see below), their demographic breakdown is familiar to me, yet I know that isn't suitable for inclusion. Edit: We say what RS say in summary, the mother is not being presented as an associate please don't assume things (the fourth associate is his sister's husband but that is also my assumption), neither is the statement being used to support that militants were killed, another assumption, family is family, associates are associates.

:About the recent Swamy insertion, he is an unreliable source, known for making things up (Talk:Subramanian Swamy/Archive 1#Conspiracy theorist). Not part of government and a known dissenter. He is simply not going in, we are not citing random Pakistani and Indian politicians talking against their govts. Also please stop using calibre.az and similar non-notable websites (neither is it what would be considered reliable not is it 3PARTY, if that is what the purpose to use it is). Gotitbro (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gotitbro If Azhar is considered an unreliable source, then his statement should not be included at all—especially not selectively. Local authorities have provided figures for all targeted sites, and for Bahawalpur, the reported numbers and demographics are consistent. Therefore, my proposal is to either include, at a minimum, the number of women and children among the casualties or to remove Azhar's statement entirely. Including only part of his statement creates a misleading impression that those killed may have been all adult male terrorists, which could distort the context. Regarding Subramanian Swamy, the source clearly identifies him as a senior BJP leader, and he is a notable public figure with a dedicated article. He is also the first notable Indian to publicly acknowledge the figure of five downed jets. Given these factors, I believe his statement merits inclusion. You can challenge Caliber at WP:RSN, I will stop using it once confirmed unreliable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Firstly about calibre, when there is an understanding that we should closely stick to known RS why should random websites be propped up here; editorial judgment is enough to exclude them not everything needs to go through RSN and after all calibre is only re-reporting things from the Pakistani media and elsewhere, use them, but in this case Subramanian is himself unreliable (too unreliable perhaps, see the Talk page linked above), him and random politicians are simply not going in regardless of source. I have seen in this previous such conflicts as well where [unofficial] statements made by politicians not supportive of their governments were also kept out.

:::Azhar says 14, local authorities say 13; the demographics are also inconsistent check the source above (7 women, 2 girls of the 13 say officials); so either one of these is incorrect. That is why it is best to stick to figures [I have said above that we add to the para that "local authorities said 13 civilians were killed"]. All male terrorists is your incorrect assumption, sources exist with quotes [which I was the first to add], readers can check them we are not counting them out here as we don't do for any other incident during this conflict. That demographic breakdown is being excluded for some bad faith purpose is not what is happening here, as has been pointed out above by uninvolved editors this info is not very relevant for us, otherwise the tables I have made below I would myself be inserting in the body with their details. Yes, children and civlians are just that, and I have seen the brutatlity of this conflict on either side [which lead me to compile the civlian names below in the first place] but I also know what is and isn't suitable for inclusion based on the numerous conflict pages I have read and the policies cited above (not by me). Gotitbro (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Gotitbro Uninvolved editor you are referring to, @Cinderella157, said that we can mention women and children. They pointed out not to include further details on the relations, for example who is who, elder sister, her husband, etc. My last comment included a compromise — that we can retain the current statement while adding just the number of women and children for clarity, for example something like {{tq|Masood Azhar, the leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, said ten of his relatives and four other associates were killed in the Indian attacks in Bahawalpur. The detailed demographics provided by Azhar of those killed included four women and five children.}} Not all readers check the sources and the quotations within them. As I said above, I am in favour of providing such basic details for claims made by both India and Pakistan. The ambiguity between the Pakistani and Azhar figures is irrelevant — whenever we cite the Pakistani claim, we will use the Pakistani figures. Here, since we are attributing the claim to Azhar, we can use the demographics he provided. So either we include the additional sentence I proposed, or we remove the entire Azhar statement, as you and Cinderella both pointed out that he is not reliable. As for Caliber, WP:RSN exists for situations where there is a dispute about a source among editors, so they can raise it there to get better clarity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Something like the leader of the "Jaish-e-Mohammed, said ten of his relatives and four other associates, including women and children, were killed in the Indian attacks in Bahawalpur." should work better. Considering conflicting official reports I think this compromise should work.

:::::I am still against including women and children elsewhere in the article and the inclusion here shouldn't be taken to be supportive of that. Gotitbro (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That should work. Now, regarding the issue of placement — when I was trying to place Pakistani counterclaims immediately after the Indian claim, you said we structure the Timeline section in a way that one party's claims go first, followed by the other party. By that standard, should third-party claims — in this case, Azhar's — not come after the second party's (i.e. Pakistan's) claims? Also, I believe it is more prudent to include the mention of women and children for both India and Pakistan, especially in cases where India claims to have killed terrorists while Pakistan claims civilians were killed. A reader can think that terrorists can be considered civilians as they are not in traditional sense military personnel. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was thinking about moving this to the entire para of Pakistani claims of civlian sites before the aircraft one (as we had it before) and we can include the Azhar statement there. Better timeline organization.

:::::::About the demo breakdown. Nope, civilians are civilians, stretching that to also mean militant is assumption taken too far. There is a reason this was removed, I have seen enough articles where the same was done; why? because once you get down to demographics then you have gender, age, details of death and all manner of emotive additions that either side uses to show morality of their military venture and the brutality of the other. This is a bridge we should not ride. Gotitbro (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I will implement the Azhar details and para reorg if there are no objections. Gotitbro (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Having reread that section, I do not see the content fitting anywhere else except where it is currently placed. You can go ahead and change the wording as agreed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Done, I have rearranged for the timeline and shifted the Pakistani claims above and moved Azhar to them. (Also moved the table to the top, was needlessly breaking the para). This should address the timeline concerns. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I see merit in your analysis for the statement of Azhar, but 10 family and four associates is not something we made up. That comes from RS including Pakistani ones. "Family friend" for Huzaifa and his mother is getting into OR and SYNTH territory, propose better wording or we better stick with what the media reported. And please discuss changes prior when you are changing content that was arrived at through consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Gotitbro I couldn't come up with a better term than "family friend"—a friend and his mother are better described as "family friends". The term "associates" likely originated either from an Indian source that misreported it, or it was introduced on Wikipedia and is now a case of WP:CIRCULAR or WP:CITOGENESIS. If his original statement, as reported in sources, refers to a long-time friend, his mother, and two companions, then describing them as "two family friends and two companions" would be closer to the source than saying "four associates". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Nope that is how it was originally reported in Urdu media before it was picked up by other sources, definitely wasn't introduced at enwiki first and to assume that it is misreporting is just that an assumption without evidence; "family friend" is simply OR, nowhere even in his original statement does he use the word (something along the lines of close friend is used, I have heard original the audio, seen the JeM message). We need to come up with a better descriptor or we can concatenate further and say something like of "14 relatives and companions". Gotitbro (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think that my comments regarding reference to Azhar and the attack on Bahawalpur have been misunderstood. The text under 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#7 May {{tq|The Pakistani government condemned them as an "act of war" that resulted in civilian casualties. Masood Azhar, the leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, said ten of his relatives and four other associates, including women and children, were killed in the Indian attacks in Bahawalpur.}} I don't see that the second sentence adds anything particularly encyclopedic when the key point (that civilians were killed) is already made. This is not a POV issue. Just because we have a source does not mean we should or must use it. We are not referring to how many were killed at Bahawalpur that this would give a significantly different claim. There is no particular reason to focus on Bahawalpur when the section deals with the targets generally. Why is it significant that he was related to or knew these victims? It isn't. He is not acknowleding that they were terrorists. What might be newsworthy isn't necessarily encyclopedic and this isn't. We certainly don't need to mention it twice in the article - at 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Pakistan: {{tq|Masood Azhar, the leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, confirmed the death of ten family members and four close associates in a statement.}} An encyclopedic article is not a collation of news sources. We summarise key facts from the sources. This isn't a key fact. We don't need it at either place. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I am not particularly opposed to a removal either at both places. Gotitbro (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with @Cinderella157, I would prefer the removal of Azhar's statement from both places. However, if it must be retained in both instances, the second mention requires better articulation, similar to the first instance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I think this article from stimson center is the most exhausting description of the four day conflict between India and Pakistan this article would give analysis more analytical and neutral tone. Also in my opnion this article is also bit academic we could remove some bits and pieces from analysis if it's too bloated and add this

https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Does it say anttiung we do not already cover? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::the timeline is lot clear than other sources that are included in the article also I believe parts of executive summary could be included in the article

::https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-0 DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe my typing causes confusion, I asked what that does it say we do not already say? We should not just keep adding links or opinions for the sake on it, but only if they add something new. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it is a much better summary of the conflict than we could ever hope to write. It says for instance that the attacks in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and its vicinity were targeted by the Indian Army from ground, and only the targets in Pakistani Punjab were target via air. That is something none of our editors ever noticed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::While this Stimson article may have provided some good details and I agree to use it for article body, I do not think Stimson source can be considered high quality WP:RS source, and hence I would disagree to use it as primary source for Wiki voice or Wiki lede statements. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|I would disagree to use it as primary source for Wiki voice or Wiki lede statements}}

::::::I don't have any objection to this. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Nuclear deterrence in the region also sadly appears to be withering away: [https://www.dawn.com/news/1913803]. Gotitbro (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292840733 Link to revert]

@Gotitbro Kautilya3 used this source [{{citation |first=Christopher |last=Clary |title=Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 |publisher=Stimson Center |date=28 May 2025 |url=https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/|quote=Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.}}] to wiki voice {{tq|BrahMos cruise missiles might have also been used.}} and it was fine by you but if we wiki voice {{tq|There was credible evidence that up to four Indian aircraft may indeed have been shot down during the encounter.}} using the same source, it is not fine. Why not raise your concerns on the talk page instead of reverting properly sourced content? I fail to understand the double standards—this is the same approach you used with the Belfer Center source as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:The aircraft claims are the most contentious ones in this conflict, and have been discussed to death here (an RfC remains ongoing above). You cannot introduce infobox and body discrepancies when we have no consensus to change this for the former. The para where you added this already lists and attributes the losses to specific sources, you cannot add Clary in wikivoice who is himself no more definitive about it ("up to" being an indicator), his assesment is based on initial reports about 3 downings in J&K. We have discussed these same reports for the claim of four before and it wasn't accepted.

:You cannot claim consensus is not required (when one de-facto exists for the ib) and add one of the most disputed things during this conflict in wikivoice and claim double standards. And FWIW, remove it for whatever else it is being used for ({{re|Kautilya3}} can comment on it), but this is not going in unless the same consensus is changed for the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gotitbro That RFC is very premature. The conflict is only a few weeks old, with governments concealing their weaknesses, as Kautilya3 rightly pointed out. New evidence and research continue to emerge every day. Even if that RFC is approved, it would not—and should not—affect the inclusion of information corroborated by newly published reliable sources. Per WP:RS, we have a credible source confirming a figure that is not even part of that RFC. I do not believe we should exclude that information from Wikipedia simply because someone initiated a premature RFC. I believe I am correct in stating that consensus is not required for the inclusion of newly published information, unless there is a policy-based reason for its exclusion—which you did not provide, apart from simply stating that I must get consensus first. Since this source was published at a later date than the sources confirming three planes, and assuming that more research and evidence have emerged over time, we should prefer the more recently published source over the older ones. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The policy based reason is BRD. That an RfC remains ongoing should have been a hint that an infobox change isn't happening through a simple bold edit; participate in the RfC if you want to effect a change there.

:::For the body, though it is less contentious there, it would have been obvious by now that we need to chalk out contentious things on the Talk page first. I have detailed the rest of my reply below. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy, and even states in bold that it is "OPTIONAL." Please point to an actual policy that the content violates. Beyond that, your insistence on requiring prior consensus amounts to gate keeping. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clary lists his sources and so did Akhtar, we use them rather than wikivoicing their assertions (something similar was assesed at the RSN for specific military details for the Akhtar source). Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I do not think Stimson center source is a high quality WP:RS source, and hence it should not be used for Wiki voice or Wiki lede, though it may be used in article body for details. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{+1}} Also there's more of a dubious assertion by the writer, of whether jets were downed by friendly fire or by anything else:

:::{{Tq2|Moreover, it remains possible that some downings—if indeed any took place—were the result of friendly fire, as fratricide remains a challenge for modern air forces, including India.}}

:::Sheriff had removed 'lost' altogether which was lawyering above similar assertions in other sources as well. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with Srimant ROSHAN on this point about claims on downing of Indian aircrafts. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Srimant ROSHAN He says it is possible but does not state with certainty that it happened in this case. The sources cited refer to previous friendly fire incidents involving other conflicts—one from 2019 and the other from 2024—so he is discussing a possibility, which exists in every such military conflict. However, that does not prove that the aircraft were downed by friendly fire. What is preventing the Indian government or Air Force from coming out and stating that their own fire downed the aircraft? In contrast, the following are the words of the source {{tq|Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.}} He is asserting three facts with certainty: he refers to the existence of "substantiating evidence", he identifies the country responsible—"Pakistan indeed brought down"—and he specifies the number of planes brought down: "up to four planes". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::To begin with - Clary is a political and geopolitical scientist [https://www.stimson.org/ppl/christopher-clary/], we must avoid his analysis on a X post "alleging" 4th aircraft loss (The aircraft could be Indian Su-30MKI, Mig-29K/Mig-29UPG or Pakistani Mirage 3/5, JF-17). So If you ask me, I have no trust in his 'substantial evidence' since that doesn't come from an aviation or military experts. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Stimson Center does appear to be a major think-thank from its own page and received notable recognition, from my perspective it does seen to meet WP:RS. Canned Knight (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gotitbro The issue I am raising here is different from what was discussed at RSN. It concerns your handling of two sources: removing one Wikipedia-voiced statement based on the Akhtar source that I added, while leaving another statement that was added by someone else. Similarly, in this case, you left the part added by Kautilya3 but removed the part added by me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

I am not particularly a fan of Christopher Clary. But I believe that he has studied this conflict closely, and produced an excellent summary of all the information available. (It shames me a bit that, with all our brains put together, we couldn't do even half as good a job as he did.) I don't agree with most of his "theories" but his summary is on the dot.

He mentions upto three aircraft downed in J&K, which we have seen in lots of sources, and another in Punjab (near Bathinda, killing a farmer).{{citation |title=CNN Cites French Intelligence Official Confirming IAF Rafale ‘Was Downed By Pakistan’ |newspaper=The Wire |date=8 May 2025 |url=https://thewire.in/security/cnn-french-official-iaf-rafale-downed-by-pakistan |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250508055116/https://thewire.in/security/cnn-french-official-iaf-rafale-downed-by-pakistan |archive-date=8 May 2025}} There is some uncertainty about the three in J&K. It is possible that one plane's wreckage landed in two separate places. That is why it is stated as upto four. I don't see a problem with it.

If it makes the Indian editors here feel any better, please note that there were no further aircraft losses in the following days, and the Indian political leadership is known to tie the hands of its military (as it happened in Kargil War too). The present political leadership will never ever reveal its weaknesses or admit any mistakes. So you have to live with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with your points, and Clary's analysis largely looks good. My limited point was against using Clary as the primary source for Wiki voice. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:: It is a WP:SECONDARY source for the summary. Primary source only for his views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clary was also used to make a definitive statement in the infobox which is clearly undue and unless we have something more definitive it isn't going to pass there. I have no problem with adding this to the body, provided that we attribute it (to Clary), make it clear how he comes to the conclusion and that he isn't definitive (substantiates of only 3). Srimant's quote maybe due as well, but first we need to workboard what sentence(s) we want to include in the body here. Please propose them.

:To Sheriff about double standards, AGF. I have already said it is immaterial to me if the rest of the usage is removed as well (but the comparison is moot as the other usage is for banal technical details). But you cannot not discuss one of the most contentious points, something this Talk page has been turned over 8 times, and then effect the stable status of both the ib and body. You should have known that it is going to be challenged the same was done with Akhtar. Gotitbro (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have two editors here pointing out that the source meets WP:RS (Canned Knight) and is WP:SECONDARY (Kautilya3). Why, then, do you believe the content should be attributed to Clary? I do not think we attribute content that is covered in reliable sources. Using the same standard—that the source is reliable—why can't we include the figure corroborated by that source in the infobox? Please point to the specific policy it violates, rather than giving the typical answer of "no prior consensus". This might be a contentious matter, but contentious issues are resolved through Wikipedia policies, with WP:RS being one of them. I do not believe you should be reverting information supported by a reliable source, even if it involves a contentious issue; the reliability of the source should resolve the contentiousness for you as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not discussing the infobox change, an RfC remains ongoing, wait for it to close or participate there. Even beyond that, you made a definitive change of 4 to the ib when the source itself is uncertain. I will end the Talk about the ib here now.

:::For the body, BRD is the standard for effecting contentious changes. RS is not the only thing we have going on here at enwiki. (PS: BRD maynot be policy but should not be dismissed and definitely not here, I doubt much gain is to be had by dismissing a major consensus building mechanism on wiki technicalities).

:::If you are not even considering the issues raised, even when editors are generally with an inclusion, of attribution and context then what is the point of this Talk page. That we attribute, when we do the rest [Reuters, Wapo et. al.) and when the source itself is not definitive. For the latter we also provide context. We cannot just throw numbers from sources and expect they stick.

:::And FWIW, it matters less to me how many planes were downed but that the sources are due, clear and definitive on the matter. For the first I agree, it is perhaps indeed due but for the latter two it isn't and we need to contextualize why and attribute (afterall they are but the views of Clary in a Working Paper). Gotitbro (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Gotitbro Again, the RFC is not addressing the newly published material, and I do not believe we should exclude emerging information from Wikipedia simply because there is an ongoing RFC that does not even consider it. I am not opposed to BRD, but BRD should not be used as the sole justification for reverting, particularly when the reversion appears to be arbitrary. BRD is useful when there is a valid, policy-based reason to revert. Did you have a policy-based reason for the reversion, or did you revert simply because you just wanted to revert? Do you believe the content was not encyclopedic or not relevant? What was your rationale for reverting? If you thought the material required attribution and building the encyclopedia was at your heart, then a more constructive and less confrontational approach would have been to add an attribution rather than removing the content altogether. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wait for the RfC to close, participate, ask for it to be modified etc. Even beyond that I have listed my objections to the RfC clearly above. Unanimous changes there are simply not going through, when we have gone over most of the 8 archives of this Talk page over it. This is my final say on it.

:::::It is not arbitrary, I have listed my reasons above. You can address them and we can workshop here what to to include. This is the contructive approach for contentious material.

:::::The source itself can be challenged on the basis of RS, it is a working paper after all, but I am willing to look past it. We now need to workshop what to include rather than go back and forth on wiki blabber. The sentence exactly as you added isn't going to work, the points I raised above need to be considered. I will provide a draft in a while, if no one else steps up. But please wait. Gotitbro (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That re-insertion was unnecessary and not 'constructive'. That is not according to Stimson Center, this is a working paper. It will ultimately have to be attributed to Clary if we are to accept this source at all. I will be providing a draft soon but I am busy with something else right now (see below). Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Having finally gone through the entire paper, it looks pretty good. But since this is a working paper and Clary's own opinion based on other [news] reports (which is what should be and are cited by us, having gone through RSN over this). We need to describe how he arrived at his conclusion especially for such a claim. I propose that we put Clary's statement after Reuters, WaPo etc. and then say that Clary thinks four were downed based on these and other data from social media. This should be a workable solution for us. Let me know what you all think. Edit: [https://x.com/clary_co/status/1928361349253325171 This comment] by Clary further lays out why we need to detail his analysis.

:::::::I am still ambivalent about inclusion in infobox as Clary is no more definitive about the fourth than any of our other sources. Gotitbro (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::A solution could be to write "3–4 aircraft shot down or lost" in the infobox Canned Knight (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I am talking about the body here for the moment. Infobox would need a better source than Clary and his paper draft. Gotitbro (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Canned Knight I agree that the infobox should reflect 3–4, if not 4. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Gotitbro The current inclusion is appropriate—it rightly attributes the statement to him, notes that it is a working paper, mentions the centre, and paraphrases his remarks. I do not think we should change it to draw our own conclusions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That it is a working paper which the author notes himself will be rewritten multiple times in the draft as well and elsewhere ([https://x.com/clary_co/status/1927717566597697905]), is caution enough that we need to detail his conclusion. Especially when the tenous nature of its conclusions has been highlighted [https://x.com/clary_co/status/1928361349253325171] (again by the author himself). I took this to RSN and the conclusion was the same, use the original sources cited by the author. I am willing to allow this draft for the time being (something we don't even do for pre-prints of papers and this is pre-pre that) but not without detailing why the conclusions were reached and why they are not firm. He dedicates a whole one line for the additional claim in his lengthy article (might we be giving more due than it deserves, maybe but I am still amenable for inclusion):

:::::::::{{Talk quote|Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.
A Washington Post visual investigation found compelling evidence of three crash sites in India—two in Indian-administered Kashmir and another in Indian Punjab. The Post went further in identifying two of the three crashed airplanes as types not operated by Pakistan, specifically the French Rafale and Mirage-2000. Additionally, since there are no reports of either air force operating manned aircraft in the airspace of the other, the presumption is any downed aircraft in India are Indian rather than Pakistani. The Government of India has not labeled any of these crash sites as being those of Pakistani aircraft.
Separately, Reuters reported on May 7 that there were three aircraft downed in Kashmir alone, citing local government sources. Since the Post and Reuters reports, video of a fourth alleged crash site has circulated widely on social media. Away from the subcontinent, foreign government officials have confirmed to international media that at least one or two aircraft were downed in India in the early hours of the conflict.}}

:::::::::We are using a source that is not very firm in its analysis (early draft after all) and we should not be doing it without tempering that very nature of its being. We are not drawing original conclusions but stating why a [shaky] conclusion was reached. Gotitbro (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Gotitbro Regarding your claims that it is a draft and will be rewritten, the uninvolved editor said: {{tq|I think by "first rough draft of history" he doesn't mean the essay will be rewritten, but rather it's an essay about the first rough draft of history.}} and {{tq|it's reliability depends on the author.}} That being said, if you want to expand upon the content, I am fine with it; however, I will oppose the removal of the attributed line. I do not see the uninvolved editor stating that you cannot cite that source, even with attribution. I believe the point about attribution was never raised there, and the uninvolved editor was responding from the perspective of the source's independent usage. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Clary himself has stated twice in the working paper that it is up for a rewrite and has explicitly restated that on his Twitter page, this is not really something that needs to be debated. I have already pointed this out on the noticeboard, and the only value that this source is of an SPS (or similar) and no more and I am fine with that. Of course you always have to attribute SPS, nowhere have I stated that I intent on a removal. But do know that drafts are at the very bottom of our RS (we don't even accept pre-prints).

:::::::::::I am willing to overlook draft concerns for the body and I will be providing a rework of the current of the current inclusion in a short while. I am still opposed to include this in the infobox, which would require something much firmer. Gotitbro (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Is this a different source, or the same one being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

: It is the same source, but this section is devoted to discussing a particular edit. So I renamed the title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{U|SheriffIsInTown}}, I am not sure why you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292808858 replaced] a print newspaper with a website. What do we know about Calibur.az? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request that The neutral source mentioned in casualities and losses on Indian side isn't credible enough, the author seems to b referring to Pakistan's initial claims of 5 indian aircrafts shot down which has been challenged around globe due to lack of evidence. Other sources like [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/fighter-jets-india-pakistan-attack/ Washington post] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/ Reuters]

claims atleast 2 indian jets shot down which is in line with the wider neutral international narrative and evidence present. Hence, I would request to change the claims in the section and cite these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceVK5 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:See many many threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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. [https://kashmirenglish.pk/kotli-holds-candlelight-vigil-victims/], [https://www.facebook.com/groups/904952476249925/posts/9656015947810157/]). 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

;Pakistan

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 another civ drone death to the table] taking deaths from known places/names to 24 25; rest of the 16 15 I have no no clue where/how they occured but likely in Azad Kashmir shelling. Note: I am basing this on official figures, there might be more deaths on either side. Gotitbro (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now moving onto the military:

;India

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

;Pakistan

Of these 5 died at Bholari while the rest presumably in Azad Kashmir in cross-border shelling. An additional death has been reported from [https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1310680-martyred-paf-technician-laid-to-rest 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 [https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/minister-visits-martyred-soldiers-residence-1978661.html]. Both of these (Sargodha, Lahore) have been later tallied by the ISPR itself [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2545851/toll-of-personnel-martyred-in-indian-aggression-rises-to-13-ispr], 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)

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a [simple] summary of key facts from the body of the article. I make three observations. Firstly, due to the fog of war and the recency of the event, there is a lot of uncertainty and widely varying claims as to casualties/losses. The claims cannot be described as facts. Secondly, the infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. Who said what/claimed whatever is both detail and nuance best left to the body of the article, where prose can better deal with nuance and excessive detail does not clutter the infobox. Terms like: few, several and majority damaged, just don't belong in the infobox. It is also not the place to detail aircraft lost by type or military installations damaged by location. Thirdly, the extent of the detail in the infobox makes it extremely bloated. I note that the casualties are hidden in collapsed sections. Problem is, that collapsing in infoboxes doesn't work on mobile devices and the infobox renders uncollapse. Where there is so much information, this creates an accessibility issue for mobile users. If it is appropriate to place this information behind drop-downs, then this information really doesn't belong in the infobox. Just because there is a parameter in an infobox, it does not mean that it should or must be used in every situation. There is a section in the article for casualties [and losses] and the ToC directs the reader to that.

In short, we should vacate the casualty/loss section of the infobox, at least for now. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now wouldn't that settle the sabre rattling. Gotitbro (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agrreed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:What is a dam doing in the ib, clearly not a mil asset. Do we start listing damage to other property as well then. I will be removing this and other extraneous no nothings. Ultimately, yes I agree this whole section needs to go. Gotitbro (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1380480913071149]. He also makes other claims such as 4 Rafales, 1 Mig, another [unnamed] plane of total 6 were downed [9:20] (also reported here [https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-shot-down-6-indian-jets-including-4-french-made-rafale-during-conflict-premier-sharif/3582409]), 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=7t8VFx7XbDw]. 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:

:::{{talk quote|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 "{{tq|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)

{{tq|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 [https://en.trend.az/azerbaijan/politics/4050102.html 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)

:::::::{{re|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 [https://www.uniindia.net/news/india/op-sindoor-targets-were-chosen-after-proper-diligence/3459225.html]]. 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: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=6BQWNIIOYJQ] (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: [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2548370/ready-to-forestall-indias-iwt-threat-pm], [https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1316196-india-can-t-block-our-water-we-re-taking-measures-says-shehbaz], [https://www.samaa.tv/2087334166-pm-shehbaz-condemns-atrocities-in-gaza-calls-for-global-action], [https://propakistani.pk/2025/05/31/indian-military-officially-admits-pakistan-shot-down-its-fighter-jets-video/], [https://abbtakk.tv/indian-defense-official-confirms-loss-of-jets-during-pakistan-conflict/]. 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293328213 additions]. [https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/5/10/india-pakistan-live-pakistan-airbases-targeted-as-blasts-rock-north-india Al Jazeera] so far only mentions 8 bases, while the table extends up to 15. [https://azertag.az/en/xeber/26_indian_military_targets_hit_during_operation_bunyan_un_marsoos_pakistan-3551763 Azertac] and [https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=7283 ISPR] claim 16 and 19, respectively. {{U|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 [https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/india-pakistan-ceasefire-iaf-strikes-11-pakistani-airbases-inflicts-severe-damage-targets-include-nur-khan-sargodha-and-skardu/articleshow/121060642.cms 11 bases], while independent sources [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html][https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/] 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)
• :::{{ping|Srimant ROSHAN}} I find it odd how you want to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293797972 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293425010] their table, after which they fixed the issues [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293492875]. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{ping|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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BQWNIIOYJQ 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293254797][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293425010][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293522785]. 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: {{tq|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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293797972 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)

• {{re|SheriffIsInTown}} About [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1293795863 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)

• About the false flag attacks on 8 and 10 May. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmY5ncXqPe0 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)
• ::{{re|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".{{citation |first=Christopher |last=Clary |title=Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 |publisher=Stimson Center |date=28 May 2025 |url=https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/}}
• ::Now, The Washington Post also complained about the clear disinformation I pointed out days ago.Karishma Mehrotra, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/04/india-news-channels-misinformation-pakistan-conflict/ How misinformation overtook Indian newsrooms amid conflict with Pakistan], The Washington Post, 4 June 2025.
• ::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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{re|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)

:{{re|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)

:::{{re|Gotitbro}}

:::* {{tq|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.

:::* {{tq|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.

:::* {{tq|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.

:::* {{tq|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.

:::* {{tq|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)

:::::{{re|Gotitbro}}

:::::* {{tq|AGF}} I'm not familiar with this acronym, please do clarify.

:::::* {{tq|"blatant propaganda" is not helping your case}} – What should I call this (over at Muridke)

:::::{{quote|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.

:::::* {{tq|They are reporting what the government claims and say that}} – The BBC Urdu journalist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AqDa_Ar80 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.

:::::* {{tq|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 {{tq|while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included}}.

:::::* {{tq|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: {{tq|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.}}

:::::* {{tq|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)

:::::::{{re|Gotitbro}}

:::::::* {{tq|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.

:::::::* {{tq|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)

:::::::* {{tq|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)

:::::::* {{tq|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)

:::::::* {{tq|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)

::::::::::* {{tq|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)

:::::::::* {{tq| 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)

:::@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)

{{od}} 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[https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque] 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, [https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan 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)

::{{re|Gotitbro}}

::* {{tq|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.[https://www.dawn.com/news/1896390]. The MoI in 2019 also reiterated that actions were taken against JeM.[https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-says-action-being-taken-against-jaish-e-mohammed-militant-group/a-47774872].

::* 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:

::*: {{tq|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.}}[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/9/who-are-the-armed-groups-india-accuses-pakistan-of-backing] نعم البدل (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::* BBC [https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/articles/cd7v7pdr095o]

:::*: {{tq|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 ([https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan]).

:::*: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)

:::*::{{re|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 [https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/pakistan-and-the-latest-reincarnation-of-lashkar-e-taiba/ May 31, 2025]:

:::*:::::{{Talk quote|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 [https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-Jce2q2V8HTdYKLvhusTqjS/ 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 {{U|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.Benazir Shah, [https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/26/the-rise-of-lashkar-e-taiba-a-qa-with-arif-jamal/ The Rise of Lashkar-e-Taiba: A Q&A with Arif Jamal], Foreign Policy, 26 September 2014. 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)

:::*:::::::{{re|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)

:::*::::::{{talkquote|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]{{citation |last=Tankel |first=Stephen |title=Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar-e-Taiba |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Iu1wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73 |year=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-023803-2 |pages=73–74}}}}

:::*::::::-- 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)

:::*:::::{{re|Gotitbro}}

:::*:::::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::* {{tq|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 {{small|(edit)}} when it concerns South Asian articles. نعم البدل (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*::::::* {{tq|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 ([https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-hkbBQP6phAvPxVkWp2t23s/ 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)

:::*:::::::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|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 [https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan 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: [https://dailyausaf.com/en/pakistan/indias-propaganda-exposed-notorious-terrorist-confused-with-respected-cleric/ 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:

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|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.

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|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[https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2025/5/9/locals-dispute-indian-claim-muridke-mosque-was-terror-training#flips-6372577016112:0] to say it wasn't.

:::*:::::::*::* The mosque isn't even known as "Markaz-e-Tayyab", it is known as "Masjid Ummul Qura"[https://www.dawn.com/news/1909295][https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque]. 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.

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|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 ([https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-hkbBQP6phAvPxVkWp2t23s/ 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)

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|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".

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|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 {{tq|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.

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|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 {{quote|Rescuers searched for victims in the debris of a damaged government complex.}} as well as {{quote|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 {{quote|Pakistani soldiers attending a funeral.}}[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/07/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-photos.html] 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: {{quote|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: {{quote|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.}}

:::*:::::::*::::*::* {{tq|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 {{tq|[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.

:::*:::::::*::::*::* {{tq|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[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/reduced-rubble-india-strikes-alleged-headquarters-militant-groups-pakistans-2025-05-07/]: {{quote|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: {{quote|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)

{{od}}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 [https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2019/03/pakistan-claims-to-crack-down-on-jamaat-ud-dawa-again.php 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)

:::*::* {{tq|Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal}} – Christine Fair:

:::*::*: {{quote|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)

{{reflist-talk}}

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.{{Cite news |last=Chang |first=Agnes |last2=Robles |first2=Pablo |last3=Mashal |first3=Mujib |date=2025-05-14 |title=India and Pakistan Talked Big, but Satellite Imagery Shows Limited Damage |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html |access-date=2025-06-02 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} 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.PTI, [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/soldier-surendra-kumar-killed-in-attack-on-udhampur-airbase-cremated-in-rajasthans-jhunjhunu/articleshow/121082668.cms Soldier Surendra Kumar, killed in attack on Udhampur airbase, cremated in Rajasthan's Jhunjhunu], The Economic Times, 11 May 2025. 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)

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

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: [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/def-cds-ld-chauhan-3569762], [https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/india-to-soon-reveal-pakistan-s-aircraft-kills-in-operation-sindoor-says-cds-gen-anil-chauhan-13091693.html/amp]. 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: [https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/6-pakistan-fighter-jets-one-c-130-aircraft-multiple-cruise-missiles-uavs-destroyed-during-iaf-retaliation-in-op-sindoor20250603194710/], [https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-losses-4-day-conflict-with-india-6-fighter-jets-2-surveillance-planes-30-missiles-2735197-2025-06-03], [https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/6-fighter-jets-2-surveillance-planes-pakistans-air-fleet-shredded-before-ceasefire-request-478884-2025-06-03], [https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/six-pakistan-fighter-jets-one-c-130-aircraft-multiple-cruise-missiles-uavs-destroyed-during-iaf-retaliation-in-op-sindoor/articleshow/121601588.cms?UTM_Source=Google_Newsstand&UTM_Campaign=RSS_Feed&UTM_Medium=Referral]

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 {{tq|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 [https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/amp/story/national/what-did-cds-gen-anil-chauhan-say-and-why-is-he-under-fire 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)