Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos

{{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)

: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)
• :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)

{{Archive top|reason=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Indian media sources in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict coverage is where it continues}}

Now that the talk page is ECP protected, I think we can have a coherent discussion without 10 sock puppets appearing.

I think all Indian and Pakistani media sources should be barred from being used in this article, except when they are being used for citing claims by both sides. Both sides medias consistently generate fake news, and are used as a mouthpiece of their governments agenda. If this suggestion gets approved a further discussion can be opened later on where this policy is applied to all articles involving Indian-Pakistani conflict (WP:CT/IPA) so that we don't have such a chaotic article again in the future if the conflict once again erupts. Ecrusized (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I'll rather establish a different brightline with similar intent and effect. Instead of just straight up banning news from India and Pakistan, I would like to propose we ban anything that's not from a WP:RSPLIST green list. I don't know if there's a better catch-all phrasing for it, but I'm effectively only asking for "generally reliable" sources and nothing else, Indian/Pakistani/otherwise.

:Effectively this allows The Hindu (which should be considered equivalent quality of source as another newspaper of record), and excludes a bunch of other sources from outside the subcontinent without the same reputation for reliability (The National Interest?). We'd need a separate discussion/RFC to clarify Al Jazeera, given the ambiguousness of the phrase "for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest". But it should be a lot cleaner than just no Indian or Pakistani sources. Soni (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::One thing to note here is that there can be reliable media outlets on both sides regarding uncontroversial content, however these outlets are likely to assume a view that heavily supports their own governments point of view in times of a conflict. Which is why I don't think perennial sources list should apply here. Ecrusized (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ecrusized}} There is an ongoing relevant discussion on WP:RSN related to this dispute, it is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Indian media sources in 2025 India%E2%80%93Pakistan conflict coverage. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is already an understanding for conflict-related articles that uninvolved sources are preferred but I am unaware of any precedence or policy which outright bars such domestic sources and absent this we should not make exceptions for this relatively limited conflict. Yes, national sources for claims but what about independent local reporting; or claims made by one and supported by the media of the other side. Things linke these need to be considered. I am all for a general disavowal of broadcast media and [random] websites even for claims but print sources is what he have traditionally accepted and should continue to for claims or other information attributable inline (unless shown to be unreliable of course).

:The usage of involved sources should be limited but to restrict them entirely or to those discussed on RSP appears to be stretching our processes thin. Do we apply this standard to say the Gaza war (Arab–Israeli conflict) or the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Russo-Ukrainian War). If yes, we can deliberate on this otherwise its time to stop re-duplicating the same thread. Gotitbro (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I oppose this move both Indian and Pakistani sources should be used as long as they're in WP:RSP. But if the consensus leans towards not using Indian and Pakistani sources then that same standard should be applied to every conflict page on wikipedia, I'll gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Consensus already exists for many years that we should not use Pakistani or Indian publications for the India-Pakistan conflict unless we have to state the position of their governments. Stop creating an absurd false equivalence regarding the US and their publications like NYT and WaPo. You don't get arrested in the US for writing against their military in Pakistan or in India where you get arrested not only for criticizing military actions and politicians but also for writing anti-war posts.[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/world/asia/india-antiwar-dissent-mahmudabad.html] Orientls (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no such broad consensus, there was a local consensus for the Balakot article to mostly rely on non-local sources and we generally prefer third-party sources for India-Pakistan conflict articles but no bar exists for local sources as for any other conflict on enwiki. Issues with sources should be taken up RSN, but a blanket ban has never been implemented for any local media and is unlikely to materialize regardless of press freedom issues in certain countries. And though we may highly rely on 3PARTY sources, local sources still remain important and I have highlighted above why a blanket ban is always going to be problematic. There is simply no precedence for what is being proposed here.

:::Though it needs reiteration that news media is still at the bottom of our RS, and academic sources et. al. would always supersede them. Gotitbro (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The broad consensus exists, which disallows Indian and Pakistani sources aside for the position of their governments. This page is also following the same standard. It all happened only since the Balakot conflict because of the degrading press freedom rankings of India. If you think any Indian sources require exemption from that standard then you should name them. Orientls (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Link the consensus then. None exists though (ad-hoc understandings for individual articles is not what consensus makes). Repeatedly asserting what you believe to be true is not going to substantiate that assertion.
Contested sources are taken up on a case by case basis at RSN, the rest is up to editorial discretion (not using broadcast sources, non-notable websites, poor regional newspapers etc.); I am not going to litigate individual cases here.

:::::The discussion continues at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Indian media sources in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict coverage. I will be ending and this re-duplication of the discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There have been many discussions throughout the years that have confirmed that we must not use Indian or Pakistani publications aside from the statements of their own governments.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_3#Refutation_of_:_US_Report_contradicts_Indian_claims_of_any_F16_shot_down.][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_1#Fake_News][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Balakot_airstrike/Archive_1#Sting_Operation][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_2#India-POV_pushing_on_this_and_daughter_pages][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict/Archives/_1#The_Indian_media_reference_spamming_of_this_article_needs_to_stop] However, there hasn't been a single discussion which has concluded otherwise. Given your failure to reply to my question "If you think any Indian sources require exemption from that standard then you should name them," you should stop thinking that volunteers should waste their time discussing the partisan Indian media outlets.

::::::The discussion was already happening on WP:RSN and I was also redirecting people to comment there instead.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291893829] Nevertheless, you still made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291918582 this comment] above which caused a debate here. Orientls (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Most of the links that you have linked are talk page on Indian Pakistani conflicts where a modus vivendi was reached when it came to dealing with Indian and Pakistani sources there's no advocacy of an authoritative blanket ban on Indian and Pakistani sources.

:::::::You're fighting an futile battle, as long as sources are in WP:RSP they will be used. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Those discussions show how the standard of barring Indian and Pakistani publications for the claims where independent sources are required was established. You can personally disagree with anything you want but you will have to follow the standard until it is at place. Orientls (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::so at first you said there was a consensus now you say there's a standard in any case there's been neither a consensus nor a standard. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The standard developed after enough discussions that formed strong consensus. Got it now? Orientls (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is not false equivalence or "absurd" since the principle that you're advocating for is that in a conflict between two countries the sources of both countries shouldn't be used then that same principle applies to every conflict article on Wikipedia.

:::Also you seem misinformed there hasn't been any broad consensus on not using Indian or Pakistani sources. If you apply your principle here then I'll apply it everywhere cause it can't be that you have one rule for India Pakistan and another for other conflicts around the world. There are enough safeguards on Wikipedia to secure India Pakistan article against useless edits and sources.

:::What you're advocating for will have a chilling effect on all India related article so tread with caution. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See the discussions I linked above. There is a widespread consensus across Wikipedia not to use the publications from India and Pakistan on India-Pakistan conflict unless it is for stating the position of their governments. Even this article is abiding by that standard. Yes you are creating an absurd false equivalence by announcing that you will "{{tq|gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention.}}" You have already been told that the US does not have poor press freedom rankings like India and Pakistan have. You are still failing to address these points. Orientls (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's no relation between Press freedom index and WP:RSP. Country based blanket ban is wrong and I will oppose that.

:::::Again you're spreading misinformation no broad based consensus has been reached regarding not using Indian or Pakistani sources.

:::::Also I find it quite amazing that the trust you put in NYT and WaPo is just over the top, this is the same NYT that manufactured consent of Iraq War and whole WMD beign there and there's enough material on NYTs Wikipedia page itself that would make anyone doubt NYTs integrity. But I digress in any case your advocacy of banning Indian and Pakistani sources is either misguided or in bad faith. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can give thousands of justifications but I'm not going to support country based blanket ban. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I hope you are not serious with your misleading claim that press freedom is irrelevant to journalism.

::::::Falsifying the discussions I linked above will not work. There is a widespread consensus across Wikipedia not to use Indian and Pakistani publications where the independent sources are required. This page also follows that standard.

::::::WaPo and NYT are totally reliable sources. NYT had admitted they were wrong about Iraq war[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews] unlike the mainstream Indian media which is showing no regret over spreading disinformation.[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/world/asia/india-news-media-misinformation.html] You must read WP:RGW. It would be better if focus only on content here. Orientls (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|I hope you are not serious with your misleading claim that press freedom is irrelevant to journalism.}}

:::::::Have you checked WP:RSP list even Russia has Kommersant and China has SCMP as long as sources are reliable they will be used on wikipedia Press freedom hardly plays any role in deciding which sources are relevant and which aren't.

:::::::{{tq|Falsifying the discussions I linked above will not work. There is a widespread consensus across Wikipedia not to use Indian and Pakistani publications where the independent sources are required. This page also follows that standard.}}

:::::::THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. And please don't launch defense for western media houses

:::::::{{tq|unlike the mainstream Indian media which is showing no regret over spreading disinformation}}

:::::::So western media hosues have shown regret? well that may be how you have perceived things but it's not the case for me.

:::::::{{tq|You must read WP:RGW. It would be better if focus only on content here.}}

:::::::I've read it and come to think of it I think it applies to you more. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::One more thing there are only 2 editor including you who are advocating for blanket ban so even now there's no consensus. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The position of Kommersant was determined from the 2021 RFC (before the invasion) where many users raised concerns about press freedom in Russia and how it affected the outlet. The closure literally said {{tq|However, editors were concerned about media freedom in Russia, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest, particularly controversial ones. }}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#RfC:_Kommersant]. This was even before the invasion of Ukraine where Russia began heavily cracking down on press to control the narrative in the Ukraine invasion. [https://cepa.org/article/muzzling-the-watchdogs-russias-media-crackdown/]

::::::::Now, what makes you think these Indian outlets are in any better position? Karan Thapar from The Wire had a case registered against him merely for having a talk with the academic Christine Fair on India Pakistan issue recently [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShlPrssZFnk]. SCMP is from Hong Kong which enjoys greater press freedom than the mainland. Your examples are flawed and only prove my point.

::::::::Consensus exists. Falsifying it won't help. If there were only 2 editors who support using Indian and Pakistani sources only for their government's position then we won't be having this discussion in the first place. Orientls (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

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)

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

{{reflist-talk}}

I think [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-for-the-next-india-pakistan-war/] seems like a fairly good source for our analysis section, any comments?

The author, Joshua T. White is a Nonresident Fellow in Foreign Policy at Center for Asia Policy Studies. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I really think we have enough. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that the section is somewhat bloated, but I would rate sources like these much higher than news sites. If the section cannot be expanded, we should look at what we can trim, instead of keeping more serious analysis out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As said above, many many times. We have to give both sides claims equal coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I dont think the "Analysis" section is about addressing any sides' claims. We are summarising third party analysis of events, in which case should we not treat tertiary scholarly sources as being higher quality than news reports?{{pb}}I'd like other editors to weigh in on this. As long as I remember, tertiary or scholarly sources were rated much higher than news sites in most controversial areas. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Secondary academic sources yes. Tertiary sources no, not necessarily. Please see WP:TERTIARY. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for pointing out, corrected. The use of tertiary as a descriptor was indeed incorrect. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Though from Brookings it appears to be a blog, but we already use one in the section (Weichert). I'd rather we avoid these, but if we were to add it this (beyond military assesments) observation about official disinfo from Pakistan appears interesting:

:{{Talk quote|Several of these were relatively sophisticated, such as Pakistan’s denials of striking India on the night of May 8-9 which, in the midst of the growing crisis, introduced real puzzles about the direction and proportionality of the subsequent Indian retaliation. Other attempts, however, were absurdist, such as official Pakistani claims that Indian ballistic missiles were aimed at Sikh population centers in Punjab, an evident attempt to exploit communal sensitivities.}} Gotitbro (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::In that case, we could add to that paragraph a limited info focusing on "information warfare" that the author covers in detail instead of creating a new paragraph. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The Analysis section of this article is rife with opinion reportage. I think it'd be wise to go through the whole section with an eye to deleting anything that is sourced to an opinion column. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that would be wise, blogs, opinions et. al. need to go. But we need to identify which ones which. Gotitbro (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think that's reasonable. I would also recommend removing any articles posted in the middle of the conflict - That can hardly qualify for more than news, since they will obviously not be able to analyse the conflict in totality. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Starting in backward order, the DW material is largely opinion as it is being used. We don't know what impact this conflict will have on future elections. The article is a blend of opinion and reportage. The National Interest pieces seem to be OK as actual analysis although Brandon Weichert's credentials as an analyst are somewhat questionable. This is how far I've gotten so far. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Small Wars Journal appears to undergo peer review and is, as such, appropriate for analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would say blogs, regardless of attribution, should also largely qualify as opinion regardless whether they analyze the past or future prospects [that includes National interest]. But if we are giving space to blogs then the Brookings source above appears fine as does the RUSI source we already use [that is a guest write-up].

:::::::Umair Jamal's writeup [https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/pakistan-comes-out-emboldened-after-clashes-with-india/] also largely appears to be opinion ("There are many reasons to believe that the Indian government’s decision to attack Pakistan has backfired on New Delhi and in ways that are not yet apparent. ... First, the three-day military exchange seems to have created a visible shift in public confidence in Pakistan." etc.) Gotitbro (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The piece in the Diplomat is a blend of news and opinion - as is standard for that publication. The opinion there is, however, backward looking (IE: it is analytical rather than predictive) so the question becomes one of WP:DUE. This is the same argument I would make ultimately for the two pieces in National Interest. They're clearly Brandon Weichert's analysis (and as such his opinion) but they are analytically oriented and backward looking, the material is not being used for predictive claims, so the question is likely one of whether that opinion is due. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I had raised this before, but it did not see much participation then [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_7#c-CapnJackSp-20250522230100-Truthprevails999-20250522111200]. I do not think news correspondents should be accorded as much, or more, weight than military analysts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::On the note I touched earlier, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/india-pakistan-misinformation-attacks/][https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/08/military-operation-in-pakistan-reveals-weaknesses-of-india-s-air-force_6741047_4.html] are both published prior to the second wave of retaliations by both countries, and thus at best show an incomplete assessment. Given we have many later articles (including from both of these sources themselves) the value of the older analysis is dubious at best. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{re|Orientls}} About RUSI, there is no consensus to remove opinion pieces from the section, this discussion is regarding exactly what we do with those. You should not make changes in the middle of an ongoing discussion and you cannot claim a consensus to include them must exist when no such policy eists and half our section is devoted to opinions. You also effectively threw out the discussion at #can we add RUSI in the analysis section? which was initiated exactly to include this. You should self-revert and participate in this broader discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If the matter is under discussion then that material has no place being in the article in the first place, read WP:ONUS and achieve consensus before inserting it. Even the sources that were not marked as opinion pieces have been removed, so why should this be kept? You should better explain why you want to keep this opinion piece. Orientls (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That article was added per Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#can we add RUSI in the analysis section?
I dont think a removal of content is justifiable when you haven't participated in the discussion there, the rationale for inclusion has been discussed already. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yet you effectively keep other opinion pieces. You cannot claim false positives to be true and then base your removals on that basis, the ONUS is nowhere on me when the addition was through consensus from a past discussion. I was the first one here to note RUSI apparently being a blog in this section and whether it should be removed. You cannot through the middle of a discussion jump the fray, unanimously reject past consensus for inclusion and then make POV removals. This is not how we do things, for someone who has been here for quite sometime this should not be lost on you.

::::::::::::I am recalling all past editors who were involved in the last consensus regarding RUSI and in the discussion here, whose previous and ongoing discussion you are unanimously overturning, {{re|DataCrusade1999|Slatersteven|Kautilya3|RogerYg|CapnJackSp|Simonm223}}. Gotitbro (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I agree with Gotitbro and Kautilya3 and support inclusion of RUSI analysis as RUSI is well respected source and it also publishes the RUSI Journal, a leading journal on defence and security, known for academic rigour with policy relevance.

:::::::::::::I disagree with Orientls, who is deleting the RUSI analysis, by incorrectly calling it a blog opinion piece.

:::::::::::::We should include the RUSI analysis, and I think there was a reasonable consensus on it with Kautilya3. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Gotitbro: Which opinion pieces are you talking about? You are free to remove any of them.

CapnJackSp, that discussion involved a sock called Truthprevails999. Was it told in that discussion that the article is an opinion piece? Consensus can change, and that discussion does not mean permanent consensus, the fact that it is challenged now means it should not be reinserted per WP:ONUS. Orientls (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Weichert, Jamal, DW etc.; read the discussion above amd participate. I am not free to remove them because there is no consensus for it we are building it by looking at the sources from the entire section [on the basis of due etc.], wait for it to emerge rather than jumping in the middle of a discussion and disrupting the process. You cannot throw away an entire discussion/consensus because one sock happened to participate in it. It does not matter whether it being an opinion piece was highlighted [FWIW, other news pieces in the section also rely on the opinions of experts, the concern again is of it being due], this was included through consensus and additionally there is no consensus to remove opinion pieces, we are actively discussing what to do with them. Consensus can change, you are not going to be the one to unanimously do it and then invert the entire meaning of ONUS. This is getting into ANI territory. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Jamal, DW and Weichert are not opinion pieces. You are simply falsifying the sources now. A discussion where no problems with the source were discussed, where the only participants were either partisans and a sock that merely agreed to include it is not consensus, do not misrepresent the WP:ONUS policy, it clearly states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", the content is disputed, you want that in, therefore the burden is on you for the consensus, not on me. You are free to go to ANI but be aware that a boomerang is certainly possible for you given your misconduct over here. Orientls (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not worried about a boomerang when an editor who has not participated in a discussion barges in to overturn past consensus/discussion [note I never unequivocally called it a consensus] based on ridiculous notions on the application of ONUS. We are actively discussing what is and isn't opinion, Weichert is a blog as clearly opinion as it gets, Jamal was partially noted as op by another editor above as was DW; the question we are discussing is whether these are due and not whether we remove all op pieces. Claiming all editors to be partisans and socks is PA and I will ignore it, but continue to cast aspersions and this is not going to go well for you. You are the only one who has disputed its inclusion, based on the flawed assertion that there is consensus to remove opinion. This is the second time you have falsely claimed consensus when it doesn't exist. Gotitbro (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You say you are not calling it a consensus when you still are referring to it as "overturn past consensus/discussion". You have absolutely no argument with regards for the WP:ONUS argument, you are the one along with others here who are seeking to include the content that is disputed, therefore the burden is on you. Let me quote the policy again, since it is so clearly supporting my argument. {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. In the previous discussion, absolutely no issues with the source were pointed out including those relating to it being an opinion piece. If anything, this is one of the many times that you are failing to understand what a consensus is. DW, Jamal and Weichert are not opinion pieces. You have provided no evidence but you are still falsifying them. RUSI is an opinion piece as clearly stated in that article. Orientls (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi Orientls (talk), I think you missed the discussion and reasonable consensus on inclusion of RUSI under

::::#can we add RUSI in the analysis section?

::::which also included some good arguments supporting inclusion of RUSI analysis by Kautilya3 as below:

::::[https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/walter-ladwig-iii Walter Ladwig] seems to be have expertise on the right kind of areas for our topic: South Asian security, counter-terrorism etc. His article recieved commendations from various experts on Twitter: [https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1925367714140627245 Hussain Haqqani],[https://x.com/iamthedrifter/status/1925287951463793125 Ayesha Siddiqa], [https://x.com/clary_co/status/1925273571279958238 Christopher Clary], [https://x.com/DerekJGrossman/status/1925480707515982026 Derek Grossman]

::::A dissenting note from [https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1925287137026404398 Rabia Akhtar], though it is about the long-term strategic impact rather than the assessment of the conflict itself. I think this article as well as Akhtar's article should be main sources to be used for the Analysis section. per Kautilya3

::::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't missed it. You are still yet to show where the discussion addresses the biggest concern with the source that it is an opinion piece. Orientls (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That would be when no past discussion regarding the disputed content, when discussion has been explicitly sought and gained ground, the onus shifts. Weichert is clearly opinion in what world would blogs not be opinion pieces, I am not advocating for its [or the rest cited here] removal though [unless consensus here is proves otherwise]. I am saying no consensus exists for opinion piece removal and certainly no policy either; Wikipedia:RSOPINION has been cited below as well. The only question that we were discussing here was whether these are due at all, of which you have made no headway. Gotitbro (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your opinion is not based on policy, whenever valid concerns are raised about content (which weren't raised earlier), the onus still remains on those who want inclusion, stone walling won't help. You must address these concerns on merit now that you have shifted from the claim that consensus exists to the point that previous discussion took place, which should not be a reason to bar the exclusion of the content on justifiable reasons such as it being an opinion piece. Orientls (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::My stance hasn't changed discussion which produced no opposition is consensus, any uninvolved admin will tell you this (I personally prefer to refrain until I see direct closures, but that is just me). RSOPINION is policy, sorry. Participate in the above discussion which are analyzing all of those sources and whether they are due. Calling it stonewalling while raising no objections with the actual content is neither based on policy, nor what has been raised here. I ultimately have no problem if RUSI is removed, I don't put much weight in the analysis section at all FWIW, but if the effort is to barge in and discount enwiki process based on personal whims that is not going to happen. I will now let other editors voice themselves, but you are not going to unanimously decide ONUS and overturn previous discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces must not be used at all. I don't see any need for them especially when we have much better articles on this subject available. Azuredivay (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Opinion pieces are widely included in Wikipedia articles per WP:RS. For example, The New York Times and The Washington Post also publish Opinion articles, which are considered WP:RS sources. Similarly, other reputed Opinion pieces from reputable sources can be used per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::First show where any opinion pieces from Washington Post or NYT were used in this article. If you don't know any, then your argument is wholly irrelevant. Orientls (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I for one don't even consider RUSI analysis as beign an opnion piece since Walter is an academic who has expert knowledge in this field. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the article falls under high-quality non-scholarly source (although the author is an expert in their field, the article isnt a peer reviewed publication - and those wont be available for quite some time). Per WP:RS, {{tq|1=Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above).}} Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, it is an opinion piece, not a scholarly publication. Scholarly sources require a higher level of fact-checking by the publishers. Opinion pieces lack them because they don't represent the voice of the publication. Wareon (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Like I said, high-quality non-scholarly source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No matter how you would like to describe it as, it is still an opinion piece at the end of the day thus ineligible for inclusion. It is not peer reviewed, it is making wild crystal ball claims and recently an agreement was reached in the #Foreign affairs section (where you had participated too) where a similar source authored by subject matter expert was deemed ineligible and was removed, so why do you want this opinion piece? Wareon (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Which 'wild, crystal ball claims' is it making, we are not including those anyhow. Aqil Shah was being used to make predicitve claims [something which the entire section below is about]. Opinion pieces are not automatically ineligble, the question here remains whether it [and the rest] is due. If peer review is what things hinge on, then the entire analysis section need be nuked, which I would not really oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Read the RUSI source, it is also talking about what may happen in the future. It has one more disadvantage that it is an opinion piece. I am not saying anywhere that we need peer-reviewed articles but was answering the inaccurate claim of CapnJackSp about this opinion piece. Wareon (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Almost all of the sources in the section make some predictive analysis, which I agree with Simon shouldn't be included. We are not going to discount sources on that basis when the majority of the source is not about it and when we already include sources, including news pieces, all which contain a para or two about the future developments; this is no different. It should not bear repeating but that it is 'opinion' is irrelevant [I was the one who highlighted it here first anyhow], RSOPINION is policy and attributable opinions are alright. The only consideration and what was actually being discussed, before the edit warring, and consensus was being sought for, was whether the sources currently in the section are due. I will be moving the discussion in that direction now.

:::::::::::If you were to honestly ask me, nuke that section. Analysis should come from better sources rather than fluff pieces written in the middle of the conflict or immediately after with no werewithall of hindsight or overview. But since almost no one is going to agree to that ["my" side won or the other lost and all that jazz has to be effected somehow], we need to determine what is and isn't due:

:::::::::::*Firstly as has been pointed out here below, we need to do away with sources from the middle of the conflict.

:::::::::::*Whether experts are assessing the things included or these are effectively assements of journalists, we need to discount the latter especially if these are solo writeups [I am willing to give due weight to multiple journalists writing a piece].

:::::::::::*Anonymous pieces, regardless of RS, need to go.

:::::::::::This is my assesment on how the section maybe improved. Ultimately, these walls of texts of discussions should serve some purpose otherwise we may keep talking past each other as has happened for the last 7 pages. Gotitbro (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I know that the analysis section needs improvement, but we need to start off by removing the opinion piece in question. Do you agree with that? If not then we will only see justifications for more opinion pieces. Orientls (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No, as I said being an opinion piece is not a determinative factor for removal nor am I going to endorse partial removal of this piece when the entire section is problematic. Wareon did make some due arguments on the basis of predictions used in the article, but I am not entirely convinced having read the piece it is actually mostly analyzing things past. Moving beyong this:

:::::::::::::*Let me tackle the first point [which has also been raised below], pre-emptive sources i.e. written in the middle of the conflict. Based on this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/india-pakistan-misinformation-attacks/], [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/08/military-operation-in-pakistan-reveals-weaknesses-of-india-s-air-force_6741047_4.html], [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-chinese-missiles-routed-indias-air-force-over-pakistan], [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-has-indias-military-performed-so-poorly-against-pakistan] would need to go. If the concern is this might tilt the content in any direction, I am sure other later sources would include much the same [but perhaps in a more nuanced way] and would advocate retaining the content based on those but these cannot remain.

:::::::::::::*[https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/pakistan-comes-out-emboldened-after-clashes-with-india/] would need to go based on the second point I raise above. Based on this very point I would say, the Times, WaPo, Al Jazeera post-conflict Monde [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/11/after-the-ceasefire-lessons-from-the-worst-india-pakistan-clash-in-20-years_6741140_4.html], FT, Atlantic Council, Zeitung, RUSI, Clary, Spencer and Viola, Bhaskar can remain as long as the sources aren't predominantly predictive nor are we using them for the same.

:::::::::::::*[https://www.dw.com/ur/%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C%DB%81-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A8%DA%BE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D9%82%D9%88%D9%85-%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%DA%BA-%DA%A9%DB%92-%D9%84%DB%8C%DB%92-%DA%A9%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF/a-72524642] The last predictive line we use about the elections from this would need to go, the rest I don't see as problematic.

:::::::::::::This is where I stand on this issue and will now let others comment. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::if you want peer-reviewed research papers on this then alot can be removed this whole article would become a stub. Peer-review takes time and as of now there aren't that many research paper on the recent conflict.

:::::::::As I've said before IMHO RUSI analysis is not an opnion piece. But you believe otherwise and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Nowhere I said I want peer-reviewed articles. You are misrepresenting me here. No matter how many times you repeat your inaccurate view about RUSI, it will still remain an opinion piece. It is not about having an opinion. Wareon (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that.

:::::::::::No one here is even disputing Walter and his expertise and RUSI analysis has been added with proper care and it's an high quality source. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If the objection is "its not published in a peer-reviewed journal, there is a lot that needs to be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:What's your opinion on news articles published in the middle of the conflict? Those at best show an incomplete assessment, and IMO should be removed especially if the same source has later published an analysis after the conflict as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::My opinion is what I said above, we either allow new paper reporting or it has to be by peer-reviewed journal. But (yes) only post-conflict analysis should be allowed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not opposed to this but i will say that please don't remove anything without consensus.

::Your suggestion would significantly affect those date-wise conflict progression section.

::But please tell us what you intend to remove before removing anything and ask other editors opnion also and create a new section on the talk page as what you're suggesting isn't related to RUSI discussion that we're having. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::If this is a reference to WaPo and Monde pre-ceasefire. I agree, briefs should be from their final analysis not from the reportage of the initial strikes/airfight. Gotitbro (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The biggest problem with RUSI source is that is an opinion piece unlike the other sources that are added in the same section. Wareon (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Regarding the specific source for @Gotitbro and @DataCrusade1999 - Yeah, I'm referring to the two sources I brought up above in this discussion. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/india-pakistan-misinformation-attacks/][https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/08/military-operation-in-pakistan-reveals-weaknesses-of-india-s-air-force_6741047_4.html]. Both also published post conflict analysis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have made a comment above regarding the same. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for catching the other two articles in the National Interest, I had not caught those. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@DataCrusade1999 as far as separate thread goes, this section is that thread - The thread on RUSI is separate, this thread is the one discussing general additions/removals from the Analysis section of the article. I've specified what articles I was referring to, lmk if that addresses your concerns or if you would like to include these for some reason. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As long as your edits are confined to those two articles I have no problem but whatever addition or removal you do please discuss the wording here first cause there are lots of eyes on this article therefore lots of opinion it would be best if we avoid any sort of dispute or edit warring. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

One issue is, how do WE determine if its an "opinion piece", if its not an Opp-Edd? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparently a Pakistani claim has been inserted in the infobox as a "third-party claim", which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1292308520 reverted]. The source used is by Rabia Akhtar, a University of Lahore professor that is visiting Harvard, and published an opinion piece. The source she used to make the claim of "downing five Indian aircraft" also states it as a Pakistani claim [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/06/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-conflict-hnk-intl]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Pakistan claims 5 Indian jets shot down", so no this is not a third-party claim. Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:To Slater: Le Monde expliticly says these are Pakistani claims. No independent assesment beyond 3 has ever come out from any RS (which oscillate between at least one, to 2 and finally 3).

:About the change to the infobox, the same was added to the body (see my comment about Akhtar in the "Update" section above), I did not realize that this was added to the ib as well. Akhtar has directly served as the Pakistani government official (currently also runs a Pakistan Politico, a magazine advocating for Pakistani strategic interests). These are her own views (though just a restatement of the Pakistani government's position) and not an independent assessment or writing of the Belfer centre; to portray it as neutral is misleading to say the least. Better editorial judgment is required here, just because a website/source/citation etc. is not coming from the Indian/Pakistani media does not mean we wikivoice it as neutral (the corollary applies but with even more care). Gotitbro (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note my post was edited by me before the above was posted, it refers to an earlier version of my post. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for catching this. I had reverted this in the body, but hadnt noticed the infobox. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for taking note of Rabia Akhtar's background. RogerYg (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This is US DIA official report - https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025_dia_statement_for_the_record.pdf, where, in the section on India, you can see the following line:
{{tq|Following a late April terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi conducted missile strikes on terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan. }}
Now, if anonymous U.S. official claims can be treated as third-party sources, then why was this official source reverted here? However, if the issue is about where to place it, I believe adding a horizontal rule (hr /) is enough to distinguish between terrorist losses and Pakistani military losses.@Kautilya3,@Slatersteven,@Gotitbro @Captain Jack Sparrow King Ayan Das (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is still only an allegation. We can't say they were terrorists in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::allegation by whom? King Ayan Das (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::By the people who wrote that report. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Are they Indian or U.S. officials? And by that logic, even the fighter jet losses are based on claims by anonymous U.S. officials. At least in this case, the information appears in a publicly available official document. King Ayan Das (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we say "1 (alleged) Rafael" that would look stupid, nor is saying the Indians have any is not an accusation (they do or come to that, even that they lost one). Pakistan has disputed the claim that these were terrorist camps. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't want to change anything regarding Indian losses. My point is that a separate section titled "Third-party sources" was created in the infobox to include casualty figures claimed by third-party sources, regardless of whether those claims are refuted by the primary sources or not. King Ayan Das (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You rasied them, however this has been explained to you (below) so I am out of here, You have been told how to add this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Obviously, in "Third-party sources" and MOS:TERRORIST, only for alleged organizations or individuals. Here, I only want to add 'Terror infrastructure facilities struck' with third-party sources, just like fighter jet losses (more transparent in this case). It's as simple as!
BTW the RFC result for Pahalgam attackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#RFC:_Militant_attack_or_Terrorist_attack King Ayan Das (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Read MOS:TERRORIST. Referring to a place as a terror camp is still an allegation, we cannot call it a terror camp in wiki-voice. Your proposal that adding a horizontal line to separate these two losses still makes it as if it is Pakistan's loss, when Pakistan and terrorist organisations are separate things. The full quote is: "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." This shows it is only giving a generic overview of the conflict, not a loss. Orientls (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :See the aforementioned discussion. And there is a clear mention of "terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan". so if the Terror infrastructure facilities are placed in Pakistan, then obviously it's Pakistan's loss. 'Losses of Pakistan' do not necessarily mean only military losses, and this report is written by US officials; it's not any Indian official's attribution. OK! @Gotitbro,@Kautilya3,@CapnJackSp King Ayan Das (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Stop this WP:CANVASSING. The source does not say that these terror camps were destroyed or hit, it simply states they were targeted. You must establish the direct relationship between these unnamed terror camps and the state. Orientls (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::You have got it wrong, any civilian, military and terror casualties should be reported. This is backed by multiple reliable voices, sources aren't hesitant in referring to these places as terror camps. Does MOS:TERRORIST restrict inclusion of non state actors in the infobox? No. It's not reserved for only Pakistani military losses. You have got more sources here: [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html|access-date=2025-05-23|issn=0362-4331] backing Indian claims of hitting terror bases.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You are doing WP:OR. Can you show where this source is establishing the direct relationship between these unnamed terror camps and the state? Orientls (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not really and not unnamed [https://aje.io/pf4atk]. Read the report, Pakistani authorities were knowingly evacuated the LeT & JuD camps before 7 May, because of the possible and inevitable Indian strikes (mind you it's well established fact that these terror organisations are actively supported by the Islamic republic of Pakistan). For now, I'll be restoring these additions under a different casualties3 parameter, it's the least we should do. We can proceed discussing its inclusion in casualties2. We need not to quote C. Christine Fair to show the relationship between Pakistani state and its terror outfits. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sources used: [https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/05/indiapakistan-drone-and-missile-conflict-differing-and-disputed-narratives/]][https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html|access-date=2025-05-23|issn=0362-4331][https://aje.io/pf4atk] Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What report are you talking about? The one cited by King Ayan Das makes no mention of any "evacuation", it is only providing a 2 line summary of the conflict in its long global report. The Al Jazeera source does not state that these were terror camps, it actually states that Muridke compound was an educational site founded by Saeed taken over by Pakistan following crackdown on LeT, only india claims it harboured "terrorists" , claim that is not boosted as truth by any credible source. You are asked to provide direct evidence of their connection of militancy, not a re-iteration of India's claims. The IISS does not support your claim that these facilities were connected to the state of Pakistan. Orientls (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::*Putting these in the same parameter that reports military losses which are the losses of state pushes the Indian view that these terror camps were supported by the state, which not a single credible source claims is true. There is no relationship between these militant facilities and the military to merit a inclusion. Your source states "While there was evidence that India had managed to hit facilities related to two prominent terrorist outfits", it doesn't support your claim that these were militant facilities, it doesn't name them either and it provides no context as to who these militant outfits were, it does not state that it was Indian missiles that hit them. Wareon (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:While I don't think including this in the current ib will be suitable (we also should be separating civilian casualties from the rest [edit: I have made this change]); if this were to be included perhaps a separate paramater for the militant groups (much like 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes) can be created. That the LeT/JuD's Markaz-e-Taiba and the JeM's Subhan Allah Mosque were hit has been independently reported by local Pakistani media (as I noted here Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 8#Terror base). That they serve as bases of these militant groups is also reported by those sources; whether they are still active terrorist training camps, i.e. providing military training, is a different question. But these are likely what the DIA is referring to as 'terror infrastructure'. Gotitbro (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The last part is merely your own opinion, the DIA report is only giving a summary of the conflict in a few words. It does not name them, it does not state these unnamed facilities were hit or destroyed.

:::::The sites you are referring to, maybe related to LeT leaders but that they were terror sites are not confirmed in any way, Pakistani sources are also not helpful here. Orientls (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that [DIA and Muridke and Bahawalpur] is my editorial judgment supported by the weight of sources. These sites are definitely related to these very militant groups even currently, not just their leaders. Pakistani sources are indeed a helpful referant here, but this is supported also by the BBC as well ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP0adf772Qo], also currently in the body). I have already delineated between terror training facilities and sites linked to militant groups in my comment above. But if we add a casualty section for these groups, this would naturally be included. Gotitbro (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::If the Terror infrastructure facilities are placed in Pakistan(as per US DIA report), then obviously it's Pakistan's loss. King Ayan Das (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's like including just any building (be that in Pakistan or India) as their casualties. It must not be done unless the relationship has been established by the sources. Orientls (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not 'any building', it's {{tq|terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan.}} (US DIA report) King Ayan Das (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Who said they are just any building? What is being said above is that you have to establish a relationship between those camps and the state. Don't ignore it. Orientls (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You! In your this- "That's like including just any building (be that in Pakistan or India) ..." reply. King Ayan Das (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I wrote "That's like including just any building (be that in Pakistan or India)" to assess the weight of the inclusion of the content you are proposing. It was not the description of the terror camps. Orientls (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we all please read wp:bludgeon, and let others have a say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Ping|Orientls|Slatersteven|King Ayan Das|Wareon}} Do we have any objection if I proceed with the casualties3 parameters for these terror actors? An Asphalt seems to be ok [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1292114952] with this as far as their summary goes. If this discussion turns to the inclusion in Pakistani casualties, then we move it accordingly. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I am fine with this (separating militant damages from the states, Indian claim of how 100+ militants etc. should also be moved there); also going by 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Other details like the initial strikes, damages can also be added under the claims, third-party etc. Gotitbro (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sources do not unanimously support the claims of these being terror facilities, and none support India's claim that these were connected to the state of Pakistan. Infobox is only meant to summarise key facts from the article, not supplant it, if they are not in the body they don't belong there. Infobox also has no place for nuance, which sources provide. Inserting these claims in wiki voice would violate NPOV. Orientls (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::A third-party source has already described the targets as 'terrorism-related infrastructure facilities.' If it's not confirmed whether these were affiliated with the Pakistani government or not, then the proposal by Srimant ROSHAN and @Gotitbro seems reasonable and balanced. King Ayan Das (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• :As long as we do not put the claim they were terrorist camps in our voice we can include it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, but which phrase? King Ayan Das (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Read my answer. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To problems with the proposal:

:::*These were "terror facilities" is not confirmed by third party sources like Al Jazeera which is cited but does not support this claim, only reporting it as the indian claim.

:::*The source that does regard these as terror facilities does not name them. (NYT source)

::::So how does it merit inclusion in the infobox? The Indian claims regarding militant deaths are already noted under Indian claims. We can also include India's claimed destruction of militant camps there, since the third party sources are vague and there is nuance here, which infobox cannot depict, I recommend covering them in the body before fixating on the infobox. Orientls (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::"terror facilities" is confirmed by US DIA report. And you can see the fighter jet losses are based on claims by anonymous U.S. officials. At least in this case, the information appears in a publicly available official document. King Ayan Das (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That falls into the second problem, and it is providing a very brief summary of the entire conflict. Orientls (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan}} - is it not enough? ? King Ayan Das (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We already do cover this in the body, the proposal is no different from the last crisis at 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. By including 100 militants in Indian claims as the second party's losses (that of Pakistan), we already imply these as part of it. The entire discussion stems from the fact that militant losses are not Pakistan's; we need to either boot them from the ib completely or include them as that of a separate party. Inclusion of militant infra loss is of secondary importance and can be handled later. Gotitbro (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is far different from 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes where the initial deaths of 40 CRPF deaths have been attributed to Jaish-e-Mohammed, while there is no such relevance of this or any other group which can be included here on this article. All we have got are Indian claims of their casualties and they are already covered under "Indian claims". Orientls (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A question

What does terrorism-related infrastructure facilities mean? Training camps, logistical hubs, printing presses, housing, Bridges, administrative centres? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:It can be written as "Terror infrastructures" King Ayan Das (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not what I asked, I asked what it means. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe all of them that you mentioned! King Ayan Das (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{od}} Hmph {{Ping|Wareon|Orientls}} If you have anymore doubts then let me descrptively quote the sources:
• [https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/05/indiapakistan-drone-and-missile-conflict-differing-and-disputed-narratives/ IISS] -
• "Pakistan sponsored terror org": {{Green|Indian air and ground-launched missiles and artillery shells struck nine terrorist facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Significantly, these included the headquarters of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed for the Pahalgam attack, in Muridke, 50 kilometres from Lahore; and the headquarters of the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror group in Bhawalpur, over 100 km from the Indian border. Both cities are in Pakistani Punjab. However, the Pakistani Armed Forces claimed that only six sites had been targeted (not acknowledging strikes on Bhimber and Gulpur in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir)}}
• "Sponsored": {{Green|The situation is compounded by Modi now seeking a strategic change within Pakistan towards its hosting of and support for terror infrastructure targeting India}}
• [https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque Al Jazeera] -
• "Not unnamed": {{Green|Muridke has long been believed to be home to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) armed group}}
• "We had already been preparing for this": {{Green|A few days ago, the authorities told us to vacate the place, so we had moved outside the complex. It was certain that India would attack this area}}
• "Sponsored": {{Green|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.}}
• [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html?smid=url-share NY Times] -
• "Verified Indian claims": {{Green|While there was evidence that India had managed to hit facilities related to two prominent terrorist outfits, there was increasing evidence that India had suffered blows in the process.}}

While there are good grounds (Given Pakistan state sponsored terrorism, backed by sources) for the inclusion of such casualties on their side, but for now I'll be proceeding with my proposal and this current debate can go on for future discussions. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Non state belligerents being included is fine, this has happened for other conflicts as well. MOS:TERRORIST is focused primarily on people - Additionally, as long as we have multiple reliable sources calling it "terror-related infra", that guideline does not prohibit the inclusion of the word "terror". A consensus regarding the Pahalgam attack was recently reached in line with the same. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:You should proceed with adding the militant groups as a third party in the conflict and for the time being just add Indian claims. Neutral assesments can be chalked out here first. Gotitbro (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Srimant ROSHAN, you are misrepresenting the sources. The first source does not support your assertion about them being sponsored by the state. The second source is clearly attributing it as a policy of Narendra Modi who believes Pakistan to be hosting these militants. Al Jazeera is only passing an anecdote, Muridke is a town, not a camp. Don't cherry pick from the source, Al Jazeera's rest of the article states that the nature of infrastructure targeted by India is disputed. Yes, Pakistan over the site only because it was founded by a charitable organisation related to LeT but the source nowhere claims that it was a "terror" camp. Pakistan telling civilians to evacuate from the area is no brainer, any country would do that, it doesn't imply any complicity and source does not support this misrepresentation. The NYT source is still vague, synthesising it with the rest of it won't help.

:Were those "militants" a party of this conflict? They were not, and this in contrast with the 2019 conflict where they were treated as belligerents by multiple reliable sources.

:Your use of casualty3 parameter is also incorrect, this parameter is to be used for "where only the total casualties of a conflict are known, or where civilian casualties cannot be directly attributed to either side.", Total casualties are not known, and casualties that are known are clearly attributed to either side by the sources therefore this parameter is not needed here and this "casualty" can clearly be attributed to India anyway, so doubly inappropriate use of the parameter. Orientls (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure how the NYT is vague. The sources above provide a clear overview of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Although you, along with Wareon, seem to be the only ones opposing the proposals by me and Gotitbro, I will also opt for an RfC. If the inclusion of 'casualties3' is not appropriate, then maybe listing a third combatant would make more sense. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Was that what was agreed to? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, the militant groups had to be added as belligerents as well. I will do this after I am done with cleaning up the body. Gotitbro (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Don't do it because there is no consensus to add about it. All we have are Indian claims about their casualties and they already exist under "Indian claims". Orientls (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The claims section is supposed to be about the losses of the other side. If going by your above comments you don't want to conflate the state and militants, then either remove the Indian claim of militants or add a separate belligerent section. You say above that the situation is different from 2019, it is isn't, JeM infra was claimed to have been struck then and the same is the case now. The status quo is simply not tenable. If you are unwilling to propose any solution, I will indeed move with this as is precedent for any conflict. Gotitbro (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::JeM are not a party of this conflict. This in contrast with the 2019 conflict where they were treated as belligerents by multiple reliable sources, including their own admission. Orientls (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::And RS here attribute the stirkes being struck as being those of Jem and LeT and the latter having perpetrated the April attack thorugh its proxy TRF. These are parties to the conflict and I have yet to see anyone oppose this. The status quo is unmaintainable if Indian claims of militants are to be included. If you want some passe remove the Indian militant claims otherwise the status quo is unmaintainable. Gotitbro (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have implemented this change, anyone challenging this should go for entirely removing India's militant claims but if the above discussion is anything to go by these should most definitely not be under Pakistan's losses [claimed or otherwise]. For the time being I have only shifted India's claims (which were already there in the infobox) to the third tab under militant groups. Gotitbro (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Wareon}} I did not see any significant opposition to the proposition and implemented it, per your own comments above the militants and state should not be conflated yet the militant casualties are under Pakistan. If you still dispute this then remove the militant claim entirely [as I say above], I don't have any problem with it, but don't recommit the folly this entire thread was started to aver. If there is still no traction regarding this. I will treat the above as RfC before and start one. Gotitbro (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There is enough opposition to this proposal because we are yet to know the significance of the militants in this conflict. Removing the casualties related to the militants from Indian claims will require consensus, though I don't see any serious problem with keeping it as an Indian claim. Wareon (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is an Indian claim under the Pakistan tab i.e. the exact thing you were opposing above the conflation of militants and state. The point of the entire discussion is rendered futile if you are unwilling to remove this or separate it from the state. I have another proposition, we can simply delineate the militant casualty claim from the state by simply adding a line (much like what was done for civ casualties [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1292356746 here]). If this is also unacceptable, I will move ahead with the RfC. Gotitbro (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::As of now, we have this: {{tq|New Delhi conducted missile strikes on terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan.}}, according to a reliable third-party source.{{cite web |title=2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment (DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY) |url=https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025_dia_statement_for_the_record.pdf |website=armedservices.house.gov |access-date=25 May 2025}} As we can all see, this is not an Indian claim—it is reported by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), so it cannot be presumed to be a primary source.

::::::Now, the issue with this report is that while it does mention terrorism-related infrastructure facilities in Pakistan, it does not specify which groups those facilities belong to. So my point is: if we are to include only this official third-party source, then it is not possible to justify listing a new belligerent. However, it can be included under casualties3, as suggested by @Srimant ROSHAN. In that case, the phrase should be: "(Multiple/Several terrorism-related infrastructure facilities struck in Pakistan)", since the original source clearly uses {{tq|facilities}} in plural form. King Ayan Das (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm fine with any of the proposals but first the stonewalling by Wareon and Orientls needs to be addressed. I would also opine for RfC, since there's no way to move forward. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{Ping|Simonm223}} Can you describe how this source is "largely an opinion piece"? It hasn't been tagged as such. It is written by Aqil Shah, the associate professor in the Department of International and Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma, and is more qualified than most of the sources on this article. Orientls (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Foreign Affairs is not a peer-reviewed journal. The analysis written into it is the personal opinion of Aqil Shah. He may have expert opinions but that does not make this something other than a journalistic opinion piece outside of academic peer review. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I put a more general statement in the section above labeled "Analysis section." Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, whenever someone is making predictive statements about the future, that is a good indication you are dealing with opinion. There are other indicators besides this one. But this one is a strong indicator that the piece is an opinion piece. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Foreign affairs specializes in  international affairs. The article from an expert is clearly warranted in that section in light of the fact that most of the sources there are not scholarly and peer reviewed either, and much worse than this source. If  we follow this logic of yours, the analysis section would be reduced to nothing. Demanding peer reviewed journals is also unreasonable given the recency of this conflict.

::::You should also describe what exactly indicates to you that this is an opinion piece when it is not. Orientls (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Frankly almost everything in the "analysis" section is either opinion or it's a blend of news and opinion. In specific, the purpose this article was used for, which was to predict the impact this conflict would have on upcoming elections, is not only opinion but is opinion of the sort that we should disallow under WP:CRYSTAL. With opinion the question is always WP:DUE rather than a straight interrogation of reliability. So the question is whether it is due for Wikipedia to speculate about what might happen in future elections, using this source as a basis. I would say no. I hope this is clear enough for you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} I just removed an actual opinion piece from the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292449472] It was marked as an opinion piece by the publisher itself. I have asked you a question below about the Small Wars Journal article below. Take a look. Orientls (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Small Wars appears to be a peer reviewed journal despite its somewhat rough web presence. Simonm223 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} Are you sure? Their own website says "SWJ (main site) is NOT a peer-reviewed journal".[https://smallwarsjournal.com/about/] Orientls (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It looks like I was mistaken. They have other pages talking about their editorial review process - missed that line. Good catch. I would suggest they are likely still reliable but the question of WP:DUE is more significant. Simonm223 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} Thanks and I think it is WP:UNDUE because it is also making predictions like "The next war won’t give the US five years to prepare. It may not give the US five months. The lesson of Operation Sindoor is not just that India is rising—it’s that the United States can fall behind", and exceptional claims like "In Sindoor, India didn’t just win. It demonstrated overwhelming military superiority against a Chinese-backed adversary". Orientls (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• This article cannot be labelled as an opinion piece because it is simply not one. To think that the source must not analyze the consequences of the conflict also makes zero sense. Wareon (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Its not labeled as an Opp-Edd, however, we do already have lots of talking head opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Even if there was a limit (there is none), then still it should not matter because I had removed an opinion piece while restoring this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292346969] If you want to trim, then the analysis published by Small Wars Journal and the analysis published by RUSI needs to be trimmed big time. Removing the analysis from Foreign Affairs is not the solution only because it was added recently. Wareon (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::*i will need to do another "like for like", but it seems to me that we should not give either side biased coverage. We give both sides supporters equal coverage and weight. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*These articles are not written by the "supporters" of either side, thus your objection is misplaced. Orientls (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*Im could not be arsed to put it in quotation marks, what I mean is we have the same amount of content for "THEY WON" "NO THEY WON" NEITHER SIDE WON". Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:Not exactly. Weight should be determined based on 1) coverage and 2) the quality of sources. Naturally, news reports rank lower than articles in journals, and they rank lower than peer reviewed research (which wont be available for some time).
While representing all reasonable viewpoints is fine, not all of them need to be given equal weight. See WP:DUE. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:Although, I understand and agree with your point about not pom-poming any one sides successes over the other. Just that there is no necessity in forcing an equivalence here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*::It's far too early to be declaring whether either side of this conflict gained anything. Please see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no need for us to get a scoop here. We can wait for actual reliable academic sources to weigh in. Throwing darts at a board for how this conflict might impact Indian elections is exactly the opposite of what should be on a Wikipedia page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:::Just to be clear, my comment was not in the context of this particular source, but sources in general. I agree that the article in general and the election speculations in particular are undue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*::::I'm willing to grudgingly accept some expert "analysis" may be published in journalistic sources and be due inclusion. However anything in WP:CRYSTAL territory is, imo, a bridge too far in terms of allowable opinion. For reason why please see WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:::::{{ping|Simonm223}} Are you also in support of removing the way larger paragraph attributed to Small Wars Journal? It makes exceptional claims such as "In Sindoor, India didn’t just win. It demonstrated overwhelming military superiority against a Chinese-backed adversary", and is also predicting the future (WP:CRSTAL as you say) by adding, "The next war won’t give the US five years to prepare. It may not give the US five months. The lesson of Operation Sindoor is not just that India is rising—it’s that the United States can fall behind".[https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/22/indias-wake-up-call-why-us-defense-reform-must-match-the-speed-of-modern-war/] Orientls (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Could you please point me to the consensus you referred to in your edit summary? I assume there must have been a discussion establishing it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:This was achieved through broad consensus at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 69 [from 2019 not 2020; was incorrect in my ES, sorry] which explicitly lay the administered part for leads. This is a well known consensus in the IPA space. The leads of Srinagar and Muzaffarabad should also give a clue. Gotitbro (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Why are you exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour and acting like a watchguard for this article? In the past few minutes alone, you've reverted edits from three different editors. Would it be possible to collaborate constructively to improve the article instead?

Pinging other reverted editors @Orientls and @Srimant ROSHAN Sheriff | ☎️ 911 | 03:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some of your edits were effectively against consensus. Orientls removed a source which was added through discussion #can we add RUSI in the analysis section? from an entire section whose sources are being effectively discussed right now above #Analysis section. ROSHAN partisanly removed only the Pakistan table even though both tables are based on respective claims [there was an attempt to remove this in the past but the discussion headed nowhere]. These edits are effetively against whatever has been achieved through consensus and discussion, this should not be thrown out on whims, calling it ownership and selectivelt targetting an editor is not going to work. Gotitbro (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Restoring an opinion piece when it was challenged on the talk page is disruptive. You shouldn't have made that revert. Orientls (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In my humble view, RUSI analysis was wrongly deleted by Orientls (talk), as there was reasonable consensus on its inclusion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That was added through consensus, you cannot unanimously overturn it, calling it disruptive while engaging in the very same behavior is tendentious. I was the first one to challenge/highlight it but am not going to throw away the entire process of consensus building of which a discussion is ongoing to effect a removal of sources in the middle of it [there is no consensus for removing opinion pieces]. The discussion continues above. Gotitbro (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are still failing to address that the source is an opinion piece, instead you are stonewalling. That is disruptive. You were required to refute the fact that it is an opinion piece before making the revert. Orientls (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why would I refute something when I was the first one to highlight it on this very Talk page, what are you on about. Keep baselessly claiming disruption but that isn't going to change the fact that there is no consensus for the removal of opinion pieces what is being discussed is whether they are due and that you are overturning previous discussions which were clearly for inclusion. Gotitbro (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't think RUSI is an opinion piece walter has expert knowledge in this field. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No matter how many times you repeat your inaccurate view, it will still remain an opinion piece. Wareon (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that.

:::::::No one here is even disputing Walter and his expertise and RUSI analysis has been added with proper care and it's an high quality source. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Deleting an addition that had prior consensus without any attempt to change that consensus is disruptive. You've been directed to the appropriate section several times, please discuss whatever issues you have on the T/P. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your stonewalling is disruptive given how you and Gotitbro are both failing to address the fact that it is an opinion piece. Orientls (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|1=You were required to refute the fact that it is an opinion piece before making the revert.}}
Opinion pieces in general need attribution, which it had. If you are referencing the discussion above, you will notice that it focuses primarily on news sites. If you note, {{tq|1=Naturally, news reports rank lower than articles in journals, and they rank lower than peer reviewed research}}.{{pb}}If you are in support of removing all opinion pieces, I'm afraid the only reasonable course of action would be to remove the section entirely till we get peer reviewed research - News publications are much less a valid addition here than actual analysis articles. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::In either case, you need to discuss first before attempting to overturn a prior consensus. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::See the discussion in the above threads. It is shown that opinion pieces should not be included.

:::::::Are you saying opinion pieces is all we have currently got? If so, then look at the rest of the articles in the analysis section. Orientls (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Orientls}} That it is an opinion piece makes no difference since it is used for an attributed mention. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Walter Ladwig's analysis has been included for his expertise in the subject area, after discussion on the talk page. I think edit warring on this issue was disruptive, since no substantive objections have been raised at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:RSEDITORIAL does not say that an opinion piece must be included. This is a contentious subject, thus opinion pieces should not be used for the analysis section. You are also wrong the rest because the use of opinion pieces in the analysis section was already discussed in the above section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#Foreign_Affairs] Orientls (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, nothing says that anything at all must be included (opinion or non-opinion). You are not sayinganything new. If you want it excluded, you need to state substantive reasons why. It can't be your own home-grown policy such as "{{tq|This is a contentious subject, thus opinion pieces should not be used for the analysis section}}". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Substantive reasons have been provided.

:::::*Opinion piece

:::::*Not peer reviewed

:::::*Making predictions

::::::These reasons led to the removal of another article by a subject matter expert in a section titled as "Foreign Affairs", despite it being not an opinion piece. There is no reason to keep this opinion piece. You have been editing for long enough to understand that opinion pieces are strongly discouraged, let alone having them on this contentious subject. Orientls (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with the recent updates by Gotitbro and find that earlier deletions by Orientls (talk) were more disrutive. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Stop repeating yourself whenever someone says something. Orientls (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gotitbro Why do you get to decide what constitutes consensus and what doesn't? Where does it say that prior consensus is required to add content to Wikipedia? This is a completely flawed approach—you cannot simply revert edits by claiming "no consensus" unless there's a clear violation of policy. It's not acceptable to say, You didn't get my approval, so I'm reverting you. Hundreds of edits are made to this article every day—why not revert all of them, then, for not seeking your approval first? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not claiming no consensus, I am saying the exact opposite. There was a discussion to include the RUSI source aka consensus. I did not decide it participants in that discussion did. I am not the one doing things on personal whims, just what was decided in previous consensus. It is not going to be unanimously overturned and the entire wiki process is not going be thrown away, sorry. If what is achieved through consensus then it must be done away with consensus as well. This is being discussed above (Analysis section) and you can participate there.

:::Your edits about administered were also against established consensus, there is broad consensus for that usage, as I have shown in the thread above.

:::About the table, as I note there were attempts to remove the Pakistan target table in the past which made no headway. But I have already self-reverted myself here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but three back-to-back reverts to three different editors did not give me a good impression. I was only referring to my edits where you insisted on prior consensus. I agreed with your revert regarding use of "administered" after you identified a clear prior consensus, but the bakery coverage had been in the article for some time, and in my view, you're the one violating prior consensus. That content had editor acceptance for a while before you removed it. This is the third day in a row my edits have been reverted by one editor or another, citing lack of prior consensus or giving vague and unconvincing reasons. It feels like certain editors are maintaining a hold on this article and only allowing selected contributors to make changes, while effectively blocking the rest. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I should've taken certain concerns to the Talk page. I apologize. But my interest was mostly in maintaining past consensus.

:::::The bakery incidents are pablum, I only removed that because from the ES it appeared that you were unclear why it was removed (I have noted the reasons above) and because conflict articles generally don't contain such trivialities. You can restore it if you want, I have no strong opinions but do note that it is without precedent and ultimately barely relevant. We are better off adding major anti-war protests, arrests of citizens for wrongthing etc. than this though. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was notified that I violated 3RR for the Srimant revert, I have self-reverted [had put effort in the Pakistan table by extracting the main airbases that were targetted from the body]. Anyone, please feel free to restore. Gotitbro (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|Gotitbro}}, I want to clarify my rationale: The table was added on the basis that Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos has been significantly covered beyond just domestic outlets. I haven't found any third-party source that treats Pakistani claims rhetorically. If I'm correct, the sources only make passing mentions of this code-named operation, let alone describe it as one targeting Indian-based elements. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Before making any edit why not build consensus first then edit. You insert things in the article without consensus then act surprised when someone removes it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro How do you consider coverage involving two notable businesses — Karachi Bakery and Bombay Bakery — situated on opposite sides of the border and linked to this conflict, not notable enough to include? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:You cannot be serious about including barely notable demonstrations infront of bakeries in a military article. There have been much more siginificant protests than this, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict protests. Gotitbro (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Gotitbro (talk) that some minor bakery protests are not notable for this article.

::The protest or support was a one day event with very limited coverage in WP:RS sources and is not WP:DUE as per WP:RECENTISM.

::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the characterisation of the bakery events as "minor"or "barely notable." This isn't just about isolated protests in front of unrelated bakeries. The coverage involved two well-known and culturally significant businesses—Karachi Bakery in India (with Karachi being in Pakistan) and Bombay Bakery in Pakistan (with Mumbai being in India)—both of which were directly impacted by the political climate surrounding the conflict. Both incidents received coverage in multiple reliable sources, and they reflect how even civilian commercial entities became symbolically entangled in nationalist sentiment during the conflict. Per WP:DUE, due weight should reflect the prominence a topic receives in reliable sources, not our personal views on what is or isn't "important." Also, WP:RECENTISM warns against giving undue weight to recent events, not necessarily short-lived ones—this distinction is important. These incidents received sufficient attention in reliable media and deserve at least brief, proportionate coverage—which, in this case, was already brief. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:You are hardly going to convince anyone that people protesting/demonstrating in favour of/against sweet shops amid a conflict between nuclear powers is notable or due. See the protest article which lists much bigger and notable demonstrations (including anti war ones) than this by political parties, civil groups etc. Why not make a headway with that to show "nationalist sentiment" (and other sentiments). What you are proposing has simply no precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:These are random street goons doing some protest infront of a sweet shop. The come out and do such things in every other event. Nathularog (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

[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)

:::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)

{{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)

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 taking deaths from known places/names to 24; rest of the 26 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)