Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#rfc 993ECB7

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

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

• [https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250512-india-pakistan-conflict-rafale-fighter-jets-shot-down-images-debunked France 24 (Debunking other losses but consonant with one Rafale loss)]: {{tq|Only one French aircraft may have been shot down.}}
• [https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/ Reuters(Based on unknown US officials and written in jargon tone)]: {{tq|A top Chinese-made Pakistani fighter plane shot down at least two Indian military aircraft on Wednesday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, marking a major milestone for Beijing's advanced fighter jet...Another official said at least one Indian jet that was shot down was a French-made Rafale fighter aircraft.}}
• [https://aje.io/a5inmx Al Jazeera]: {{tq|Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.}}
• [https://www.barrons.com/news/three-indian-fighter-jets-crashed-on-home-territory-cause-unknown-indian-security-source-c8d544c0 AFP (Another unknown source with no hard evidence)]: {{tq|Three Indian fighter jets crashed on Wednesday on home territory, a senior Indian security source said, without giving the cause.}}
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/fighter-jets-india-pakistan-attack/ The Washington Post (Evidence based report)]: {{tq|India’s air force appears to have lost at least two fighter jets, including one of its most advanced models, during attacks Wednesday morning on sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, according to a review of visual evidence by The Washington Post.}}

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

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

• [https://directus.gr/apokleistiko-oi-galloi-milisan-gia-ta-rafale-den-katarrifthike-pote-gallos-ebeirognomonas-diapsevdei-tis-pakistanikes-tourkikes-fantasioseis/ Xavier Tytleman] rebukes the claims of Rafale downs. If that's the case, then I'll have to go with Option 2 and omit the dubious casualties, having no hard evidence presented as such. We can add these differing analysis to article body. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Instead of citing the actual source of the information, which is an Indian pro-Hindutva fake news source [https://www.eurasiantimes.com/no-rafale-crash-in-kashmir-french-expert-debunks/] you are citing some translated article on "directus.gr" in order to evade the concerns about horrible reputation of Indian media. Be careful and stop finding ways to deceive editors with this waste of time RfC. Wareon (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Speedy close - The RfC is not formatted properly and provides options without any basis. If you don't have any independent sources that reject any losses of the airforce, then you shouldn't provide any option like "Option 2: Omit from infobox". Orientls (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It is actually well formatted if you have a close look at it. I'm basing the option 2 because sources currently fluctuate the casualties and before inserting anything, we need to discuss the losses. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:*Option 1 - Wareon and Rightmostdoor6, there's no need for a heated exchange of arguments. Remember, assume good faith. Tytleman is also quoted by [https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250512-india-pakistan-conflict-rafale-fighter-jets-shot-down-images-debunked France 24], so it was unnecessary to paint anything and anybody under Hindutva media, if anyone can find more sources for debunked airforce losses then it would be easier to go with option 2. |govind| (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:*You haven't described why you are supporting faulty option 1. France 24 is a state-owned outlet, thus not reliable for the topic. Orientls (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:I did not notice this before, but adding my rationale here.{{pb}}There are varying reports discussing losses. Some say one, some two, some three. Some attribute to anonymous sources, while others cite "high likelyhood". To interpret this as "3 lost or downed" is a complete misrepresentation. Option 1 is the closest to a summary of RS.{{pb}}A reminder for all editors, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH are important policies. Our aim is not to analyse the information in sources and them make conjectures based on them - We are supposed to simply summarise RS. Only Option 1 does that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• :Option 2 seems valid, unless there is a neutral report out with legitimate proofs instead of citing classified sources without proof and facts (which is currently been done by this outlets), it should be removed. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy close This RFC is premature, having been created within a few weeks of the conflict's culmination. More research and evidence are still emerging. Just yesterday (28 May), a source [{{citation |first=Christopher |last=Clary |title=Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 |publisher=Stimson Center |date=28 May 2025 |url=https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/|quote=Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.}}] was published stating {{tq|Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.}} We currently do not have the option of four—what are we going to do after this RFC ends? Are we going to implement its prematurely decided result and then initiate another RFC with an option of four fighter jets down? I request that this RFC be closed and that the results from the latest source, which reports the updated figure of four jets shot down, be included in the infobox.

{{reflist-talk}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Exactly, third-party RS clearly confirm four crashes (three in Kashmir and 1 in Punjab separately). It's laughable how Option 2 is being pushed here when even Indian Chief of Defence Staff has admitted losses.{{Cite web |date=2025-05-31 |title=India finally admits it lost fighter jets in clash with Pakistan |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-pakistan-war-rafale-fighter-jet-downed-b2761216.html |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=The Independent |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=31 May 2025 |title=India Confirms It Lost Fighter Jets in Recent Pakistan Conflict |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-31/india-confirms-it-lost-fighter-jets-in-recent-pakistan-conflict?embedded-checkout=true |archive-url= |website=Bloomberg}} JayFT047 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

::{{Ping|SheriffIsInTown|JayFT047}} I'll say this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-Srimant_ROSHAN-20250530085500-SheriffIsInTown-20250529161500 again] - Clary's analysis on the 4th crash should be taken with a grain of salt, given he's not an aviation academic expert. He didn't evaluate the cited video from X, but somehow concluded because it was downed in Indian territory. You don't just repeat or conclude on what an [https://x.com/OSINTWarfare/status/1921608154808201386?t=o34wRBTUTkGfPSzwCMKwuA&s=19 X post] claims. Had he evaluated if the debris/engine matches with any Indian jet or if the video is not old or doctored, then his analysis would have made more sense (even if he has no experience in dealing with military technicalities). Since there's no third party source to back his claim, I have no faith in his military analysis. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::::For the track records, we have rejected many sources because they don't come from a subject expert, this one can be very easily overlooked because it lacks any deeper analysis of an X video and the author is a geopolitical scientist. Let's keep distinguishing Indian and other party claims. Just got to [https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=7283 know] that the Pakistani military doesn't claim the Mirage crash unlike the Pakistani government and media. How are we supposed to deal with this? Ultimately clear Ib? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk about High Drama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::Still not a valid reason to remove the content, the original article is here [https://www.nzz.ch/pro/chinesisches-kampfflugzeug-schiesst-einen-rafale-jet-ab-europa-muss-daraus-lernen-ld.1883873] and the fact that it has been edited to align with the original article by the staff itself means it is reliable, just because the article is in different language is also not a valid reason to remove the source. Orientls (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::The [https://www.nzz.ch/pro/chinesisches-kampfflugzeug-schiesst-einen-rafale-jet-ab-europa-muss-daraus-lernen-ld.1883873 original source quote] from NZZ: "Für Indien wirkt die Operation «Sindoor» wie ein einziges Desaster" is accurately translated. This is not Wikipedia's voice, but a reliable source’s attributed opinion. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RS, attributed analysis like this is allowed. It's not a violation of WP:DRAMA or WP:QUOTE. Please avoid removing reliably sourced, properly attributed content. Any continued removal will be treated as disruptive editing, and this matter will be reported per WP:EW. JayFT047 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Per WP:Verifiability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::Please note that this story was machine translated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::The NZZ article says its is Machine Translated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::::The latest revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1294595276] by @Orientls in re-adding the translated quote, without any TALK page discussion, is a violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:BRD

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::::That is exactly what has been done in this case. The [https://www.nzz.ch/pro/chinesisches-kampfflugzeug-schiesst-einen-rafale-jet-ab-europa-muss-daraus-lernen-ld.1883873 original source quote] “Für Indien wirkt die Operation «Sindoor» wie ein einziges Desaster” has been cited, and the accompanying translation has been provided. The English version of the NZZ article also notes editorial oversight, making the source verifiable and appropriate under WP:RS and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::::::Quoting

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Thanks for your kind inputs on the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::While Orientls and JayFT047 tried to provide some good reasons for keeping the quote, they missed the critical guidelines from WP:Verifiability policy for Wiki Articles on CONTENTIOUS TOPICS, such India-Pakistan-Afghanistan

:::: The relevant Wikipedia policy below guides the editors against the use of Non-English quotes on Contentious articles.

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

:::: Since there has been no recent response to my arguments, I think we can build a reasonable consensus to remove the NZZ quote from the article that is in violation of WP:Verifiability policy for Contentious articles. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi Slatersteven, I think that we can build a consensus to remove the disputed quote from NZZ as discussed in the recent discussion above per WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources in the context of Contentious Articles, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also being a valid concern. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No there is not, regardless of how many times you repeat your views. Wareon (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have provided several new arguments with relevant Wikipedia policies in response to the ongoing discussion. I am trying not to repeat, but to respond to each argument, and discuss per WP:BRD, WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Rather than trying to wade through a huge thread trying to find one line, please suggest the new text here, I will then judge it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, as discussed above, quoting from NZZ likely violates WP:Verifiability for Non-English sources in the context of Contentious Articles, hence I suggest to remove the quote.

:The suggested new text is:

:According to the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the reported downing of an Indian Rafale jet (made in France) by a Pakistani air-defense system (made in China) raises concerns for Western military technologies.[260] It noted that in the Operation Sindoor, India failed to take out their targets quickly, unnoticed and without losses, with Indian pilots encountering fierce resistance, and that despite India's claim that Pakistan was behind the Pahalgam attacks and its intention to deliver a punitive response, the operation resulted in heavy losses for India.[260][261]

:Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Slatersteven I am suggesting to remove the quote per WP:Verifiability, and keeping the rest largely as it is. You may suggest some futher changes, if appropriate. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::{{re|Gotitbro}}

:::* {{tq|Sorry, no reliable 3PARTY considers LeT to be defunct}} – Not true at all, pretty much every reliable source has mentioned the fact that these buildings were taken control of by the government following the ban of these organisations. This is mentioned by at the very least Al-Jazeera, BBC English articles and BBC Urdu ground journalist have mentioned this. I have yet to look through other sources, but the bottom line is LeT is a proscribed organisation in Pakistan and all their assets have been taken over by the Govt of Pakistan.

:::* {{tq|WP:MEMRI is an issue for article content not for which RS cites it.}} – The Sky News article hasn't built on top of it. It's two main bases were 1. TikTok videos of the damage of the buildings, covered by unknown accounts (literally random users), and 2. MEMRI. That is not a strong source at all.

:::* {{tq|When a past discussion(s) to remove has/have not beared any fruit that is indeed consensus against removal}} – On an article like this? Lol, come on. Only one long-standing user was involved in making an argument for keeping it up, and you were there in making sure it stays up – and not only here, but on other articles like Muridke.

:::* {{tq|About Murdike, multiple experienced users edited it and added to the content}} – Let's discuss these "multi-experienced users". 1. Yourself, 2. Anand2202 3. Truth Layer 123 4. Kautilya3. The section at Muridke is again blatant propaganda, that not only goes against WP:POV but also WP:DUE.

:::* {{tq|I tried to address some concerns by clearing the lead out of it, but blanking it out is itself POV.}} – Yet you're failing to address the elephant in the room which isn't the lede, but the entire section. It has no place in that article. The only reason why it has stayed is because the Muridke article is a niche article that hasn't garnished much attention, and these so-called "multi-experienced users" are aware of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::* This is 5,877 bytes out of 10,130 bytes (of the total article) including references. Tell me how that isn't blatant propaganda.

:::::* {{tq|They are reporting what the government claims and say that}} – The BBC Urdu journalist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AqDa_Ar80 in this video] mentioned reports from locals, not just the government. The fact is, if that section was intended to be neutral, it would have very much mentioned the fact that the LeT was banned in Pakistan, and its assets have been taken over by the government – like I say, that's a bare minimum.

:::::* {{tq|Sky News is relevant, your analysis that it isn't RS in this instance doesn't hold up. Take it to RSN if the only issue is of reliability, becuase it is very due otherwise}} – WP:VNOT states that {{tq|while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included}}.

:::::* {{tq|Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media}} – No, specifically by Indian Media, why is why out of the 10 references mentioned on that article, 5 of them were various different Indian media outlets, while the other 5 were articles from 3 outlets - BBC, Al-Jazeera and the Guardian which certainly didn't put as much weight into these allegations as the Indian articles did. That's not a co-incidence. Not to mention the excessive citing that was going on in that section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::* {{tq|which you are apparently not doing}} – I said it from the start that I respect you as a user, but if you start claiming bad-faith, then the discussion will go south very quickly, especially considering there's potential issues regarding WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH with yourself and the "experienced editors". Please let's not go there.

:::::::* {{tq|I know the difference between Indian and international media]}} – Bearing in mind that Muridke is not a significant city, and one that most Pakistanis would fail to point out on the map. It has a population of 255k in a country where the total population is 250+ million. Even for Urdu Media, I could only find around 15 Urdu news articles about Muridke prior to the conflict (none which talk about LeT), despite Urdu media having discussed this topic before. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::* {{tq|bring me one international media or academic source which mentions Muridke and is not pointing out its connection to Let etc }} – Find me a tool where I can block out Indian media, because I literally cannot find any article or website, that wasn't written by a person from India, or from Indian Media. I can't even find Pakistani sources for that matter, and I don't think you're that naive that you would not be aware of Indian Media's disinformation campaign that has been active since early 2000s.

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

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

:::::::* {{tq|I will remove Sky News from there,}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{od}} Gotitbro You should refrain from making these claims of an existing consensus when there is none, only when your preferred content is removed, this is called status quo stonewalling and not a valid reason to oppose any changes to the article. نعم البدل is correct that following the crackdown by the Pakistani government, many of the buildings affiliated with LeT have been under the Pakistani government control[https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque] for a while now. Orientls (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Academic sources have been cited, all of which see the bans as ineffective where the groups largely continue as before (it was banned and taken over similarly twice in the 2000s and again in 2018, [https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan which was also questioned]).

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

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

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

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

::{{re|Gotitbro}}

::* {{tq|Academic sources have been cited}} – Such as? Christine Fair which Kautilya3 has mentioned previously? I don't think so – Christine Fair as a reference is problematic on its own. Please mention these other academic sources. The reference you gave was dated 7 years ago, even though steps were taken against JeM in 2019, including the imprisonment of Hafiz Muhammed Saeed. Every non-Indian article (or let's even say pro-India source), has mentioned this. This was reiterated by Dawn this month when the Punjab government released the list of proscribed organisations in Pakistan.[https://www.dawn.com/news/1896390]. The MoI in 2019 also reiterated that actions were taken against JeM.[https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-says-action-being-taken-against-jaish-e-mohammed-militant-group/a-47774872].

::* The fact that BBC Urdu journalist reported on the ground in May 2025 and verified it from locals that the mosque and by extension the city no longer has any links to LeT or it's related organisations, should be enough to negate that.

::* Al-Jazeera reported recent:

::*: {{tq|Pakistan says LeT has been banned, however. Following an attack on Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pulwama in 2019, Pakistan also reimposed a lapsed ban on Jamat-ud-Dawa. Saeed was arrested in 2019 and is in the custody of the Pakistani government, serving a 31-year prison sentence after being convicted in two “terror financing” cases.}}[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/9/who-are-the-armed-groups-india-accuses-pakistan-of-backing] نعم البدل (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:::*:Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal. Anyhow numerous other sources have been adduced which say the exact same thing including Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, you are free to go through them. These bans have always been perfunctory is noted by all academic lit (three takeovers of the Markaz have happened since the Musharraf era), Reuters noted the ineffectiveness of the 2018 takeover even back then ([https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::*:::::{{Talk quote|While the JuD’s terror-listing by the United Nations and the U.S., along with impending sanctions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), prompted a crackdown against the charity in Pakistan in 2018, members of the LeT and JuD told me in interviews that the continued backing of the Pakistan Army for these groups was “not hidden from anyone.”
... So while the Pakistani state has cracked down on JuD-allied charities, and sentenced LeT leaders like Hafiz Saeed, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and Zafar Iqbal to prison, political parties officially paying allegiance to Saeed have surfaced as part of the military’s mainstreaming of jihadist groups. ... The latest political rebirth of LeT is the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML) which contested the 2024 election. While the PMML officially denies any connection with the Lashkar-e-Taiba or any involvement with militancy, its leadership says the party backs the armed struggle for Kashmir’s independence. In a statement to The Diplomat, the PMML said the party backs “freeing Kashmir from Indian occupation” as a single-point Kashmir policy. “Not only is India involved in extreme human rights violations in Kashmir, but it is also involved in destabilizing and terrorizing the whole region,” said PMML General Secretary Saifullah Khalid Kasuri. [Sanctioned as a [https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-Jce2q2V8HTdYKLvhusTqjS/ global terrorist]] “India’s war-mongering necessitates a return to the ideology of Pakistan and cutting off of all ties with India,” he added.
The Diplomat's investigations reveal not just the PMML's political connection with the LeT, but also the party's spearheading of the madrassa network, including the Markaz-e-Taiba in Muridke, one of the sites hit by Indian strikes. In a video shared with The Diplomat by a student of the Markaz-e-Taiba, recorded days before the Pahalgam attack, a local PMML leader Naseer Ahmad can be heard telling a gathering in Muridke that "the ideological offspring of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed will continue his jihad." In March, LeT cofounder Amir Hamza, a close aide of Hafiz Saeed, delivered a Friday sermon at the Markaz-e-Taiba urging “jihad against the kuffaar (infidels) including Israel and India.” The Markaz-e-Taiba frequently hosts Hafiz Saeed’s son Talha Saeed, along with PMML founders Saifullah Kasuri and Tabish Qayyum, both of whom were also cofounders of the Milli Muslim League. ... The funeral prayers for those who died in the Indian strike on the Markaz-e-Taiba were led by the LeT-affiliated, U.S.-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdul Rauf, who ran the group’s Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation.}}

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

:::*::::::Thanks for that {{U|Gotitbro}}. Even if the original organisations are supposedly banned, the Markaz-e-Taiba is devoted to propagating the Ahle Hadith sect, which has jihad as its integral part. MDI/JuD/LeT have indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of people.Benazir Shah, [https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/26/the-rise-of-lashkar-e-taiba-a-qa-with-arif-jamal/ The Rise of Lashkar-e-Taiba: A Q&A with Arif Jamal], Foreign Policy, 26 September 2014. So even if the organisations get banned and the leaders imprisoned, the remnants will last a hundred years. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:::*::::::{{talkquote|A fair proportion of the curriculum also focused on jihad. For example, an Urdu textbook used by the classes in their second year of primary education featured the final testaments of mujahideen given before they went into battle.[27] Secondary school primers were modified such that ‘c’ is for cat and ‘g’ is for goat became ‘c’ is for cannon and ‘g’ is for gun. Teachers also had to have taken part in at least one jihad campaign or gone for military training.[28] Schooling entailed a significant physical element, including swimming, mountaineering, wrestling and martial arts. This curriculum was intended to prepare students for jihad, even though the group never intended to send all of them to fight.[29]{{citation |last=Tankel |first=Stephen |title=Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar-e-Taiba |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Iu1wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73 |year=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-023803-2 |pages=73–74}}}}

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

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

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

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

:::*:::::* {{tq|the news sources are only voicing the govt}} – Not necessarily. Not every source has claimed that this was just a Govt narrative. BBC Urdu and English have both confirmed this through locals. Al-Jazeera has also stated it as a fact, and not just as "the government says...". There was also a NYTimes source which has stated this, but I forgot to bookmark it.

:::*:::::* {{tq|have been questioned this time around as well and non-news RS continue to call Muridke and the Markaz as the LeT hub}} – Sources which I have requested for. So far, I have brought you a number of references that say otherwise.

:::*:::::* {{tq|So let us see what another independent, contemporary and i depth source has to say on this. – The Diplomat May 31, 2025}} – The Diplomat is not an "independent" source. It is an Indian Media outlet {{small|(edit)}} when it concerns South Asian articles. نعم البدل (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::*::::::And Hafiz Abdur Rauf ([https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-hkbBQP6phAvPxVkWp2t23s/ LeT sanctioned member]) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar.

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

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

:::*:::::::* {{tq|About The Diplomat (magazine) it isn't Indian, that is false ... And Hafiz Abdur Rauf (LeT sanctioned member) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar.}} – I clarified it that when it concerns that South Asian topics, it is indeed an Indian Media outlet, not necessarily based in India. The fact that the article mentioned the cleric who led the funeral prayer supposedly being Hafiz Abdur Rauf actually proves this point, because that point was tunnelled through Indian outlets, and it is only being spread by Indian sources, or ad-hoc Indian media sites. The identity of the cleric has not even been clarified anywhere to my knowledge.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|it is widely considered RS on enwiki (see WP:RSP)}} So is Indian Media generally, but what you don't seem to be grasping is my point. If you had to put your sources on a scale, with one side being pro-India, and the other being pro-Pakistani propaganda, your sources regarding Muridke would indeed be more on the end of pro-India, no? There is a reason why there is an extra emphasis on 3rd party sources for Indo-Pak articles, which evidently The Diplomat is not.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|We have a very high quality RS from a day ago laying out in explicit terms how it absolutely isn't. Then you have other sources which say the same, from this very month or year. News bites are not going to impeach these.}} If I'm correct, you've brought three sources: 1. Christine Fair, 2. The Diplomat, 3. Stephen Tankel's assessment which is at least 14 years old, where "Markaz-e-Tayyaba" being taken over by the government and the revision of the syllabus taught in the seminary was in the last 6 years. "Newsbites" may not seem as strong, but when several independent sources have stated it, they do tend to be reliable enough.

:::*:::::::* {{tq|I consider this the end of the discussion for the Markaz being defunct.}} – The lack of a consensus would say otherwise... 3 users object. نعم البدل (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:::*:::::::*:BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims. These are not independent verifications. Something which the Diplomat did above and which is in line with what [https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640404/seized-not-ceased-banned-charities-pose-challenge-pakistan Reuters] reported earlier when the ban initially happened, it is just like the previous ones i.e. unenforced. That the bans have always been like this is noted also by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad.

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

:::*:::::::*:PS: [https://dailyausaf.com/en/pakistan/indias-propaganda-exposed-notorious-terrorist-confused-with-respected-cleric/ Here] is Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity (though it doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist). Gotitbro (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*:::::::*::Gotitbro:

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|The Diplomat is not an Indian source it is 3PARTY}} – Again, I didn't say it's based in India, nor that the newspaper is Indian media. I said that that its South Asian division, which is led by an Indian-origin journalist, is – it is, in effect, an Indian outlet based in the US. Like I said, this point about the cleric was tunnelled through Indian Media, something which wasn't echoed by actual 3PARTYs.

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims}} – Both have included quoted locals[https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2025/5/9/locals-dispute-indian-claim-muridke-mosque-was-terror-training#flips-6372577016112:0] to say it wasn't.

:::*:::::::*::* The mosque isn't even known as "Markaz-e-Tayyab", it is known as "Masjid Ummul Qura"[https://www.dawn.com/news/1909295][https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque]. It's also important to mention that the surrounding medical complex were also taken over by the government.

:::*:::::::*::* Your source from The Tribune was already refuted since it was written in 2018, the takeover was done in 2019, as I've said several times now.

:::*:::::::*::* {{tq|Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity}} Slightly perplexed as to why you've brought this reference in, when it 1. Categorically states that point about the cleric being a supposed terrorist, Indian propaganda, which negates your source of The Diplomat, and 2. doesn't even accept the cleric was the militant and was just an ordinary cleric of the mosque. نعم البدل (talk)

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

:::*:::::::*:::First about Abdur Rauf, I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above ([https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-hkbBQP6phAvPxVkWp2t23s/ here] again). Ausaf was used just as a source verifying his identity. The Diplomat is now merely independently reporting on and verifying it.

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

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

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|to impeach an RS source based on the supposed ethnicity of its editor and circular reasoning}} – Point to be noted is that it is not based on the ethnicity, but rather the source of the information. I'm saying bring me other 3PARTYs which have echoed this point. You brought in Ausuf which is calling the same point "Indian propaganda".

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above}} That is WP:OR, because your conjugating two sources which are claiming two different things. You stated that Ausuf {{tq|doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist}}, not it actually claimed the opposite of that. You can't take one half of an article and excuse the rest.

:::*:::::::*::::* {{tq|If you have problems with The Diplomat litigate them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard}} – Suppose, we ignore the source of the information, and I agree that you have supposedly two (dubious) sources which say it isn't defunct, I have two sources BBC and Al-Jazeera, at a minimum, which say they are defunct on the bases that BBC claims it as a fact, and Al-Jazeera quotes locals and the government. You're dismissing them on the bases that it's "news-bites", which is basically what Wikipedia is based on. This is ignoring several other points that I've made.نعم البدل (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*:::::::*::::*:By the way, the captions of pictures of Muridke in NYTimes stated the compound {{quote|Rescuers searched for victims in the debris of a damaged government complex.}} as well as {{quote|At a government health and educational complex in Muridke, about 20 miles from Lahore, Pakistan, on Wednesday.}} and as far as the funeral was concerned just stated {{quote|Pakistani soldiers attending a funeral.}}[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/07/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-photos.html] نعم البدل (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:::*:::::::*::::*::It wasn't just a one-liner, though. The BBC article explicitly states: {{quote|It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT. Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke ... One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago.}}

:::*:::::::*::::*::The in-depth Al-Jazeera article discussing whether it was actually a "terror base" or mosque, while explaining the different areas of the compound states: {{quote|The Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD in 2019, at a time when the country was under international pressure to crack down on Saeed and the LeT or be placed on a “grey list” of countries deemed as not doing enough to stop financing for banned armed groups.}}

:::*:::::::*::::*::* {{tq|than the the perfunctory news articles that you weight this against}} – What you call "perfunctory news articles", would be news organisations reporting on skirmishes and strirkes carried out by two nuclear powers. Even the absence, or lack of confirmation of {{tq|[t]he takeover procedure [which] had started in 2018 of course never happened as is noted by our later sources here}} and only claimed by compromised sources is nothing but dubious at best, especially when 3PARTYs do not cover these points.

:::*:::::::*::::*::* {{tq|of course never happened}} – This is also not true, whether or not these organisations operate covertly or not is one discussion, but these take-over did certainly take place, with the Reuters source stating[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/reduced-rubble-india-strikes-alleged-headquarters-militant-groups-pakistans-2025-05-07/]: {{quote|A sign outside describes the site as a government health and educational complex, but India says it is associated with the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).}} – which meant that a takeover did in fact take place. This is also backed by the captions on the images shared by Associated Press.

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

:::*:::::::*::::*::* Also in regards to the cleric, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the Reuters article also states this: {{quote|Azhar, who has not been seen for years, and his brother, Abdul Rauf Asghar, deputy head of the group, did not appear to have attended the funeral prayers.}}

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

You are again confusing Masood's brother for Saeed's aide. Moving on, signs and all don't matter much when you have articles and sources explicitly stating that the Markaz us still in the hands of the LeT/its fronts. When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue. BBC and Al Jazeera simply reporting on govt. actions isn't what an independent assessment constitutes with them making no determininative judgment. The consensus is not the one needed for inclusion, the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles (LeT, Muridke and here); especially when the weight of the sources, academic and otherwise, are against whatever you propose. The HQ simply isn't defunct, it hasn't been in oqst takeovers before (read the ISSI report, and read [https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2019/03/pakistan-claims-to-crack-down-on-jamaat-ud-dawa-again.php LWJ]) and there is no evidence for it now (we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment). I think I have said what I needed to say and believe we are going around in circles, if you still have sourcing issues (news bites over indepth investigation are also RS issues) take them to RSN because litigating them here isn't going to lead to much of anything. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:* {{tq|When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue ... we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment}} - Fair's tweets on X and personal opinons are enough to show that her works shouldn't be qualified here. What I don't understand is why this is a "my way or the highway". Yeah this is a RS issue, but it's not one-way. It's a two-way street. You're dimissive tone with my sources means you're also rejecting my sources which are much more recent than yours and more comprehensive (specfically the Al-Jazeera article, which is attempting to tackle this very topic). The same can be said to you, especially when it's clear you can't establish a concensus on this discussion, that if you have an issue with my sources then you should be the one going to WP:RS as well.

:* You have no arguments against the "news bites", other than essentially a personal dislike for them.

:* {{tq|the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles}} - Something that has been pushed by several users across several pages, and then also disputed isn't "stable content" and also problematic, that too on articles which are continiously being edited and worked on due to a high-profile event - again you've been here long enough to know that that would not be considered "stable content".

:* {{tq|The HQ simply isn't defunct}} - the building and compound is still running. No one denied that. LeT isn't using that place. That's the issue. One thing that baffles my mind is that you can't even bring yourself about to accept the fact that even a frontal takeover by government has indeed taken place, which, putting everything aside, has taken place. Ground sources say that, and prove that.

:* {{tq|(read the ISSI report, and read LWJ)}} - Are you going to start bringing in every random article written by every Dick and Tom, on every random website, while simoltaneously ignoring the sources that are in front of you?

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

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

:::Sharing a quote from The Diplomat article:Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, [https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/pakistan-and-the-latest-reincarnation-of-lashkar-e-taiba/ Pakistan and the Latest Reincarnation of Lashkar-e-Taiba], The Diplomat, 31 May 2025.

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

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

::::{{re|Kautilya3}}

::::* {{tq|In the first sentence, The Diplomat names itself. So it is not correct to label this as a "guest article".}} - I never had an issue with the specific author, I had an issue with The Diplomat, overall as it has had a history of parroting Indian propaganda, with articles using (and not simply 'mentioning') biased language such as "PoK" and whatnot. The Diplomat is not a 3PARTY source, and there is a reason why its reporting or similar reporting hasn't been done by actual 3PARTYS.

::::* {{tq|Christine Fair, Stephen Tankel, Samina Yasmin}} - These are your sources, 2 of which are problematic and definetly not neutral, and 1 (Stephen Tankel) is out-dated.

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

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

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

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

{{outdent}}

{{re|Gotitbro}} You need to tell me your position on the Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba because from what it seems, it is nothing more than an Indian propaganda piece on Wikipedia, while users unapologetically bring in WP:POV sources to WP:CITESPAM sources, such as Christine Fair, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, as well as niche references like the "The Diplomat (magazine), Le Figaro", "Le Monde", "South Asian Terrorism Portal", which is quite literally an Indian source (which seeks to expose "Islamist extremism & terrorism in South Asia", or quite literally anything seen as "anti-India"), among other references, while failing to acknowledge recent sources, or any source that doesn't convey an Indian POV.

These are only issues with the sources - the wording, and issues with WP:SYNTH, not to mention the fact that several sources which I've mentioned here, have been used in the article, yet the full context hasn't been mentioned at Muridke - such as the Al-Jazeera source, which as I mentioned earlier was meant to tackle this very issue, which you even fail to acknowledge.

I am proposing the following compromise on the topic, because even with your edits to other sections of Muridke, it's still evident that the article is not even about the city itself but JeM. If not, then I will be starting an RFC for this, because for some reason my IP keeps getting blacklisted and I can't edit anything until my IP cycles and I'm not waiting several weeks to be able to contribute to any discussions while the Indian POV that Muridke is the centre of global terrorism is pushed across all of Wikipedia (p.s feel free to read up on WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH), and I don't see a concensus on the removal of the entire section among us.

Here is my proposal:

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

This is a more neutral setting for which WP:RS can be found.

I am also not settling for any version which does not emphasise on the fact that the government has maintained, or at least has claimed to have taken over the compound as a civil facility (in contrast to the claims of JeM or any auxliary group maintaining control of it (and not just a one-liner)). The mention of the compound should also be a brief mention to keep it WP:NPOV, because the article is about Muridke, not Markaz-e-Tayyaba, regardless of the fact that Kautliya3 decided to add{{diff|Markaz-e-Taiba|1291077653}} a redirect of Markaz-e-Taiba to Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba.

Also pinging {{ping|HilssaMansen19|Orientls|SheriffIsInTown}} who have commented here before. نعم البدل (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::{{re|Gotitbro}}

::* {{tq|You cannot unilaterally decide what is and isn't RS when community consensus already exists for it}} - You're backtracking from your words. Which consensus? It has been disputed by a couple of users even apart from those who are already a part of this discussion. You and Kautliya3 have shot down any attempts of trying to change those POVs, and when I stated there is no consensus, you argued that a consensus was irrelevant. So I ask you again, which consensus are you referring to? There is no "community consensus", and no consensus here.

::* {{tq|You cannot unilaterally decide what is}} - And you do? Because at the very least, I've acknowledged the sources that you've brought, and presented my issues with them, which other users have agreed with. Your reasoning for discarding and dismissing my sources was not that they're not credible, rather because you insinuated you didn't prefer them. As far as that's concerned, you should be the one going to RS as well.

::* {{tq|The Diplomat, Figaro and Le Monde aren't fringe, bizzare for anyone to claim this}} - Really? Come on, I've given you some reasons. Have the decency to at least acknowledge them, some of them which are literally Indian sources, not to mention that out of all the possible sources, you bring them, while shooting down Al-Jazeera, BBC, NYTimes and whatnot? Yes that is bizarre.

::* Academic sources may have their credit but they need to be reliable and neutral. Christine Fair is not. Feel free to open up a consensus in that regard.

::* {{tq|personal accusations of POV are irrelevant}} - It's not personal if they're on the record and even stated on the author's Wikipedia article, as I've shown you. The vast majority of three sources are either outdated or weak/unreliable. You're telling me you'll put up "South Asian Terrorism Portal", (which is based in India, and you've been here long enough to know that we have the decency of not using Indian sources for pro-Indian POV against Pakistan and vice versa), against other reputable source, and find no issues with that?

::* {{tq|I cannot agree with reduction of it where moved elsewhere or giving prominence to governmental claims or with the continued attack on RS.}} - Well, the bulk of it as you said needs to be reduced, not moving, and curtainly not expanded as some users as hell bent on doing.

::* {{tq|When a proposal begins with "propaganda" and ends with behavorial accusations}} - I stand by my points, feel free to refute them and explain or they don't against the wikipedia policies that I've mentioned. You can beautify 3-4 sources into a note and attach 3 other sources to prove a point but it would still go against WP:CITESPAM.

::* {{tq|you were told to take this to RSN}} - And fyi, I was going to take it RS, but my IP refreshed and was blacklisted. I only came back to see if you were willing to compromise or not, since I hadn't put forward one. نعم البدل (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::::* {{tq|Which has been addressed, but the main contention which has occupied this enlarged section is the unevidenced labelling of community-decided RSP sources.}} - In what way was it addressed? It was nothing more than a unilateral decision by yourself to decide what is and what isn't. You've been instructing various things, yet aren't willing to budge yourself? نعم البدل (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{re|SheriffIsInTown}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1295094866 This] addition is clearly undue, not one single academic on Kashmir, South Asia or jihadist groups believes the oft repeated false flag allegations to be true nor pay any heed to it. I get adding official Pakistani claims but to try and legitimize it by adding original commentary from a dubious article by the Daily Pakistan (no byline and full of unsubstantiated ridiculous claims with bigoted comments to boot) is not something we are going to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::@Kautilya3 I don't believe there is anything wrong with citing the Al Jazeera source, but here is [https://www.dawn.com/news/1906207 another secondary source] as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::The attack is indeed seen to be the work of TRF despite its later retractions ([https://pacforum.org/publications/pacnet-35-the-pahalgam-attack-in-kashmir-why-we-should-expect-a-forceful-response-from-india/]), this isn't really a thing debated among RS.

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

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

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

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

:::::This here is conspiratorial as well.

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

::::::@Gotitbro There are two parties to the conflict, and we are including Pakistan's official position regarding the basis of this conflict. This is not an offhand remark by just any minister — it is a statement by the Defence Minister of Pakistan, and therefore constitutes an official position, unless contradicted by another Pakistani government representative stating that the attack was not a false flag and that groups from Pakistan were involved. [https://www.dawn.com/news/1906207 Here is another source] that reflects Pakistan's unified stance that it was a false flag operation. If this cannot be included, then many Indian claims in the article — which are solely based on government sources — should also be removed. For example, all the sites mentioned as being linked to terror groups, from Gulpur to Sarjal, are based entirely on a government claim supported by a propaganda document hosted at CGI in Istanbul and another transcript. If the standard is that government claims unsupported by independent sources are to be excluded, then that standard should be applied uniformly, not selectively against Pakistani government claims. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::*Joshua T. White, Center for Asia Policy Studies, Brookings Institution [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-for-the-next-india-pakistan-war/ ]: "India quickly and credibly claimed that the attacks were carried out by a front group affiliated with the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), while Pakistani sources asserted, implausibly, that it was a false flag operation."

::::::::::*Network Contagion Research Institute [https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Inside-a-Pakistani-network-promoting-false-flag-conspiracies-about-Pahalgam-terrorist-attack.pdf]: "To quantify the spread of false flag conspiracy theories, the NCRI’s open-source monitoring documented a surge in hashtags and keywords promoting the false flag theory in Pakistan’s online sphere, which were subsequently collected between April 22 and May 6, 2025."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::This is in addition to the above edit; plus, discuss before editing/shifting comments not made by you per your pov! {{tqb|you are continuously adding similar non-npov stuff/claims. You are an experienced editor and this page is already as conflicting as one can be.}} this wasn't raising another discussion but highlighting a similar concern and from such edits, you seem to continue doing this without even discussing. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 04:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:::::I agree that RfC is better.

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

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

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753405274}}

{{rfc|hist|rfcid=C44D1F2}}

Should the following statement, reflecting a Pakistani claim, be added to the Background section of this article, which currently describes the 2025 Pahalgam attack as a key event in the lead-up to the conflict?

{{tq|Pakistan alleged that the Pahalgam attack was a "false flag operation" orchestrated by India.{{cite news|last1=Kestler‑D'Amours|first1=Jillian|title=Kashmir updates: Pakistan claims Pahalgam attack 'false flag operation'|work=Al Jazeera|date=24 April 2025|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/4/24/kashmir-attack-live-india-summons-pakistani-envoy-hunts-pahalgam-gunmen|access-date=11 June 2025}}{{cite news|title=Shehbaz hails Trump as 'man of peace'|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/2549582/shehbaz-hails-trump-as-man-of-peace|work=The Express Tribune|date=5 June 2025|access-date=12 June 2025}}}}

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

• Leaning yes. This is the official position of Pakistan and is covered by several sources, so this is notable even if likely false. Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• No. To claim that a country conducted a terrorist operation against its own citizens in order to push the blame on another country is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and we need an overwhelming coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT sources for it to worthy of an encyclopedia. In contrast, we have only one independent newspaper covering it, that too in a running newsfeed without any commentary of its own. Given how many international news sources covered this conflict, AFP, Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph etc., it is easy to conclude that they assessed this ridiculous allegation as unworthy of their own coverage, and so it has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Not WP:REFBOMBING the content does not mean that no other sources exist or have covered the allegation. It is true that no source, in its independent capacity, is likely to label it a false flag; otherwise, it would cease to be merely the Pakistani allegation. We are not asking for it to be described in Wikipedia's voice as a false flag—we are simply requesting that the Pakistani allegation be included. For that, multiple sources cover the allegation, WP:THREE examples:
• :* [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4wk22vk4zo.amp BBC]
• :* [https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/regional-reverberations-the-pahalgam-attack-and-its-impact-on-south-asias-security-landscape/ Australian Institute of International Affairs]
• :* [https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/india-pakistan-relations-hit-new-low The Interpreter / Lowy Institute]
• :Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - Although enough sources have been added above, I would add that Indian sources also reported this information.[https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pahalgam-attack-provincial-minister-calls-it-false-flag-drama-says-pakistan-prepared-for-any-aggression/articleshow/120557948.cms] There is no need of this RfC for seeking inclusion of this very much needed information on the article. Orientls (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes – As the initiator of this RfC, I support the addition for the reasons outlined in my earlier comments above discussion thread. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Any addition needs to make clear that this is an allegation made by Pakistan, but it has been covered by multiple independent sources that show it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::These are the edits which are in dispute: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1295265294], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1295267030]. Gotitbro (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 12 May, a day after the ceasefire declaration, a session of the National Assembly of Pakistan was convened to celebrate what was regarded by Pakistani leaders as a victory.{{cite news|title=NA stands united in support of armed forces after Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos|url=https://www.pakistanstatetime.com/news/na-stands-united-in-support-of-armed-forces-after-operation-bunyanummarsoos|work=Pakistan State Time|date=12 May 2025|access-date=11 June 2025}} The government of Pakistan promoted Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir to the rank of Field Marshal on 20 May 2025 citing his leadership during the conflict. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described the military operation as a "remarkable success" and commended Munir's "exemplary courage and resolve".{{cite news|title=Govt elevates COAS Asim Munir as Field Marshal|url=https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/885100|access-date=20 May 2025|publisher=Dunya News|date=20 May 2025}} Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad Babar was granted a second tenure extension 'in recognition of his operational excellence' during the conflict.{{Cite web |date=20 May 2025 |title=Air Chief Marshal gets extension after Operation Bunyanum Mursoos success |url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/2546898/air-chief-marshal-gets-extension-after-operation-bunyanum-mursoos-success |access-date=27 May 2025 |website=The Express Tribune |language=en}}

The announcement of the ceasefire by U.S. President Donald Trump triggered a political controversy in India.{{cite news|title='Operation Sindoor': Congress's fresh 'Narender surrender' salvo at PM Modi features Trump's red MAGA cap|work=India Today|date=5 June 2025|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/operation-sindoor-congresss-fresh-narender-surrender-salvo-at-pm-modi-features-trumps-red-maga-cap-2736281-2025-06-05|access-date=11 June 2025}} On 3 June 2025, Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it was made under pressure from Trump.{{cite news|title=Rahul Gandhi accuses PM Modi of 'surrendering' to U.S. pressure over Indo-Pak ceasefire|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh/rahul-gandhi-accuses-pm-modi-of-surrendering-to-us-pressure-over-indo-pak-ceasefire/article69653581.ece/|work=The Hindu|date=3 June 2025|access-date=11 June 2025}} Gandhi said, "Trump made one gesture from there (the US), picked up the call and said Modiji, what are you doing? Narender surrender. And Modiji said yes sir."

On 3 June, several Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. The Congress party began collecting signatures to formalise the request, urging the government to brief Parliament. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session.{{cite news|title=As Oppn pushes for special Parliament session on Op Sindoor, govt not keen: 'No plan as of now'|last1=Mathew|first1=Liz|work=The Indian Express|date=3 June 2025|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/oppn-pushes-for-special-parliament-session-on-op-sindoor-govt-not-keen-10044883/lite/|access-date=12 June 2025}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::@Gotitbro I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here—this is about the government's reluctance to convene a parliamentary session, seemingly to avoid opposition scrutiny over the conflict. It is unrelated to speculation about future developments. While a session might still occur, more than a month has passed since the conflict ended. In a democracy, the absence of a parliamentary session for such a duration after a major conflict with another country is, in itself, of significant encyclopedic value. The source clearly supports that the demand of the session is due to General Chauhan's admission. I am willing to remove the part about Congress collecting signatures, as it may be too detailed. With this adjustment, the final paragraph would read as follows: {{tq|On 3 June, Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session.{{cite news|title=As Oppn pushes for special Parliament session on Op Sindoor, govt not keen: 'No plan as of now'|last1=Mathew|first1=Liz|work=The Indian Express|date=3 June 2025|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/oppn-pushes-for-special-parliament-session-on-op-sindoor-govt-not-keen-10044883/lite/|access-date=12 June 2025|quote=While the Opposition makes a renewed push for a special Parliament session following General Anil Chauhan's recent comments on losses suffered by India on the first day of Operation Sindoor, government sources say there is no plan at the moment to convene such a session.}}}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again asking for a special session isn't itself notable, neither is it tied to Chauhan's statement. The opposition has been asking for it since the Pahalgam attack ([https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sharad-pawar-backs-congresss-special-parliament-session-demand-over-pahalgam-vows-support-for-govt-101746016865998.html]) and has since added other reasons for it over time (including Operation Sindoor). A special session is likely to be held later this month and a regular monsoon session would anyhow per law follow in July. This is exactly the kind of thing that falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, among other issues such as notability etc. Gotitbro (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{reflist-talk}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753887679}}

{{rfc|hist|rfcid=3FC0BB2}}

Should a new section titled "Aftermath" be added to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article to cover developments that occurred after the end of the conflict but are related to it, as reported by reliable sources? Currently, some of these developments—such as the promotions of Indian and Pakistani military officers and Pakistan's announcement of a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Donald Trump—are included in the final paragraphs of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Impact section. If consensus supports the creation of an "Aftermath" section, these items could be moved there for more appropriate contextual placement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support – As the initiator of this RfC, I support the proposal for the reasons outlined in my earlier comments in above discussion thread. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as this seems way to broad, a bit of a blank cheque. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you mean by "broad"? This is a straightforward question about whether to include an "Aftermath" section to cover post-conflict developments. I just included some examples so it is easier for editors to decide. Do you really think the example content belongs under "Impact"? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::And that is what I mean, this will not give permission to add any content, only move what we already have. as such it seems to serve no purpose. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Slatersteven It serves a purpose, as there is opposition to creating an "Aftermath" section—period. We first need to determine whether it is appropriate to add such a section. In my view, the example content belongs under "Aftermath", not under "Impact". The RfC is only about the structure — whether such a section is appropriate in principle. Any specific content added to it would still need to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, sourcing, and relevance, and would remain subject to consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I have stated my opinion, I did not question yours, so please give me the same courtesy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Slatersteven I was just explaining the reason for the RfC, as your comment appeared to raise an objection. In any case, thank you for sharing your opinion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: This doesn't make much sense too me. The Impact section seems to be enough; if there is an Aftermath section, I feel there is a risk in the future of editors trying to add future happenings on the India-Pakistan conflict to the page, even if they are unrelated to this event specifically. Could you be more specific on the content you would like to add to it? From reading the discussion between you and Gotitbro I would have thought the matter to be over. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Coeusin At this point, I am requesting that an "Aftermath" section be created and that the following content be moved there from the "Impact" section. Your concern about potential future expansion can be addressed in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Any future additions would also be subject to those policies. As a result of this RfC, at the time of the creation of the new section, only the following content should be moved to the "Aftermath" section:
• :{{talk quote|On 12 May, a day after the ceasefire declaration, a session of the National Assembly of Pakistan was convened to celebrate what was regarded by Pakistani leaders as a victory. The government of Pakistan promoted Chief of Army Staff GeneralAsim Munir to the rank of Field Marshal on 20 May 2025 citing his leadership during the conflict. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described the military operation as a "remarkable success" and commended Munir's "exemplary courage and resolve". Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad Babarwas granted a second tenure extension 'in recognition of his operational excellence' during the conflict.}}
• :{{talk quote|Addressing the nation on the eve of 12th May, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that India has always defeated Pakistan on the battlefield, and Operation Sindoor has added a new dimension.[non-primary source needed] He added that India has only paused military action with Pakistan and will strike if any further 'terrorist attack' occurs. On 9 June, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, who, as Director General Military Operations (DGMO), played a key role during Operation Sindoor, was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Strategy).}}
• :{{talk quote|On 21 June, Pakistan announced it would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in brokering the ceasefire. Pakistan credited Trump's diplomatic intervention, though India denied any U.S. mediation.}}
• :If you read the rest of the "Impact" section, all other content pertains to the immediate consequences that occurred during the conflict—such as the closure of Pakistani airspace, shutdown of Indian airports, cancellation of cricket matches, blocking of Twitter and YouTube accounts, effects on stock markets, viral videos, protests, and arrests. All these events took place during the conflict. Immediate impact is distinct from the long-term aftermath. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@SheriffIsInTown, thanks for clearing that up. Of course all content on Wikipedia is subject to the project's policies, but it is naive to expect all editors (both new and old) to conform to them perfectly; if we have the chance to minimize misunderstandings and deviations from policy, we should take it. In this case, adding this content to the article will only open the door for further bloat, and will not aid any reader to understand what happened in this conflict. The article already states elsewhere that both sides claimed victory; that is enough, in my opinion. Also, the page already has 8k words. Coeusin (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Coeusin That content is already part of the article and is not under dispute. What is under dispute is its placement—whether it should remain in the "Impact" section or be moved to a new section titled "Aftermath". {{tq|Of course all content on Wikipedia is subject to the project's policies, but it is naive to expect all editors (both new and old) to conform to them perfectly;}} Dealing with editors who do not adhere to policies is itself addressed within Wikipedia's policies. We cannot WP:CRYSTAL to justify avoiding proper article structure based on a hypothetical future concern. Take this case, for example: I wanted to create an "Aftermath" section but had to initiate an RfC to do so. If someone adds content in the future that may not belong in the article, they will need to gain consensus. If Gotitbro, myself, or even you are not actively editing at that time, I'm confident someone else will be available to address it and help reach consensus. We cannot halt progress based on speculation about what might happen. The question we should be asking now is whether the content—already part of the article—is more appropriately placed in its current section, or whether it would be better suited in an "Aftermath" section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Tagging {{yo|Gotitbro|King Ayan Das}} who were also involved in the seemingly unresolved previous discussion. Coeusin (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

CEO of Dassault, the manufacturer of Rafales has spoken about the subject. He said that there is not much known right now but no American F-35 or Chinese J series war-aircrafts can down 3 Rafales as claimed. He indicated that once truth comes out, some may be surprised.

“We’ll see if there were losses or not, and if the war aims were achieved. When the truth comes out, some may be surprised,”

[https://theprint.in/defence/pakistans-claim-on-3-rafales-shot-down-inaccurate-better-than-f-35-chinese-fighters-dassault-ceo/2658419/]

@Gotitbro @Kautilya3 I am occupied in assignments, can either of you check and add it wherever relevant? HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 10:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{U|SheriffIsInTown}}, I see you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1296075270&oldid=1296072925 changing] the text of airstrikes section to:

{{talkquote|On the night of 7–8 May, India said it thwarted a Pakistani attempt to hit military targets across multiple cities. In response, India struck air defense systems in Lahore. Despite Pakistan's official denial of action that night, India went on to hit key Pakistani military installations on the night of 9–10 May.{{cite news |title=What We Know About How the 4-Day India-Pakistan Clashes Unfolded | work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/asia/india-pakistan-what-we-know.html?login=email&auth=login-email |access-date=12 May 2025 |agency=The New York Times | last1=Mashal | first1=Mujib | date=11 May 2025|quote=India said it had thwarted a Pakistani attempt overnight to hit military targets across a dozen border cities and towns. In response, it had taken the kind of action that analysts say almost always escalates a conflict: It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore....Pakistan's astonishing official response — a complete denial that it had done anything on the second night—[left two explanations for the events: that it was just a probing mission, which Pakistan did not want to distract from the actual retaliation that was coming, or that it was an initial retaliation that had not succeeded.]. But India nonetheless took the opportunity to damage crucial Pakistani military sites.}}}}

{{reftalk}}

The New York Times's "astonishing official response" basically refers to NYT's supposed disbelief in Pakistan's blank-faced denial of reality.

The "But" doesn't mean your "Despite". This is textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS.

Moreover, none of this referred to the night of 9–10 May, which is complete WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

: And, by the way, the Pakistani strikes that India "thwarted" on the second day were also on India's military sites.Hannah Ellis-Petersen, Shah Meer Baloch, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/08/india-pakistan-kashmir-tensions-airstrike India claims to have thwarted Pakistan missile and drone strikes], The Guardian, 8 May 2025. (NYT may not know that.) So there is nothing surprising in India retaliating on military sites. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Kautilya3 {{tq|And, by the way, the Pakistani strikes that India "thwarted" on the second day were also on India's military sites.}} This point was included as part of the changes I made. {{tq|On the night of 7–8 May, India said it thwarted a Pakistani attempt to hit military targets across multiple cities.}} In that case, may I ask why you chose to revert it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, if NYT knew that the Pakistani strikes were on military sites, then I have no idea what their "But" refers to. Perhaps it was the fact that the Pakistani strikes had failed, but India nevertheless retaliated. This report is too vague to put much emphasis on the fine points. It was just a quick summary written for an American audience with limited interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kautilya3 NYT did not know; NYT is stating an Indian claim, i.e. {{tq|India said it thwarted}}. "But" refers to Pakistan officially denying it, yet India taking the opportunity based on its own allegation: {{tq|But India nonetheless took the opportunity to damage crucial Pakistani military sites.}} I understand your concern about the report being vague, but if the report is being used to source some content in the article, then we cannot misinterpret it. We must adhere to the source, and the current content does not adhere to the sources—my changes did. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 Regardless of the astonishment, the fact remains that Pakistan officially denied those attacks. {{tq|The "But" doesn't mean your "Despite". This is textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS.}}, you might not agree with my paraphrasing, and the language can be adjusted by replacing "Despite" with "But". {{tq|Moreover, none of this referred to the night of 9–10 May, which is complete WP:OR.}} but the content you restored states…{{tq|In response, on 9 and 10 May, the Indian Armed Forces carried out multiple air-strike operations, but this time with an expanded scope to target Pakistani military installations.}} So if the source does not mention 9 and 10 May, then why are you restoring WP:OR? My changes were closer to the source—I even added direct quotes to make verification easier.

:The content you restored says…{{tq|On 8 May 2025, as a retaliation of Indian strikes, Pakistan claimed to target several Indian military bases.}} Where does the source state a Pakistani claim and 8 May as the date for Pakistan's claim? There is no mention of Pakistani claim in the source. Rather the source states that in its own wording that {{tq|On the nights of Friday and Saturday, the situation escalated rapidly to an air war with few holds barred, but in which ground forces had not been moved. Pakistan launched an immense campaign of drone and missile strikes, targeting military bases across several Indian cities — this time with acknowledgment from the Indian side that, although its air defenses had thwarted much of the barrage, there was damage to equipment and loss of security personnel.}} The immense campaign being referred to occurred on Saturday night and pertains to Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, which took place during the night of 9–10 May and into the morning of 10 May.

:India's claim about thwarting Pakistani attacks pertains to the night of 7–8 May, which Pakistan completely denied—astonishingly—after which India targeted defence systems in Lahore. Attempting to disable those systems was a prelude to Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases on the night of 9–10 May, to which Pakistan responded with its own attacks.

:The current statement is completely inverted: it mentions Pakistan's non-existent claim first, then the Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases. Instead, it should follow this sequence—first India's claim of thwarting attacks, then its strikes on defence systems of Pakistan, followed by attacks on Pakistani airbases, and then Pakistan's retaliatory response, which should be covered in a separate section. At present, the section on Pakistani strikes is entirely missing, as if nothing happened after the Indian strikes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't write the original content and I am not going to defend it. But the edit you made added an improper connection between Pakistani denials and India's strikes in Wikipedia voice. That is not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kautilya3 I am going to make this change if there are no objections: {{tq|On the night of 7–8 May, India claimed to have thwarted a Pakistani attempt to strike military targets across multiple cities; Pakistan officially denied taking any action that night. In response, India targeted air defence systems in Lahore, followed by key Pakistani military installations on the night of 9–10 May.}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That is still misleading. Unless India had said that it was striking in response to Pakistani denials, that fact should not be inserted here at all. This section is on India's airstrikes, not Pakistani statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Note that we are not required to follow any particular source. We try to follow the WP:CONSENSUS among the RS as far as possible. A particular newspaper's own non-expert opinions are hardly worth anything. They should be simply ignored. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kautilya3 We are not supposed to cherry pick the sources either, we had this source supporting one assertion which was being misinterpreted so when someone tried to change it to adhere to the source, now you do not like the source. WP:CONSENSUS, no where states that we are supposed to follow consensus among sources. We cannot just say that this is consensus among sources, let's add this statement and then add any source regardless of whether it is supported by that source or not and how do you expect a consensus among sources one month into the conflict? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::See WP:NPOV. {{tq|Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.}}. (emphasis added) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Kautilya3 No one is stopping you from analysing a variety of reliable sources, but once you do so, the information you add must be supported by the sources you cite, without synthesising them. At present, there is a source that says one thing, but the content in the article says something else, which is not acceptable. How about we change the content so that it adheres to the currently cited source while you analyse other reliable sources? Once you are done, you can add the new sources and then update the content accordingly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It also seems be NYT's opinion that the strikes on the 9th night were in response to Pakistani strikes on the 7th night (two days earlier). In reality, the Pakistani strikes were made every night, including the 9th night itself. India itself said that there were missile attacks from Pakistan after 0140 hours on that night. They somehow missed the missile intercepted over Sirsa, which was at 12:15 am. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kautilya3 {{tq|It also seems be NYT's opinion that the strikes on the 9th night were in response to Pakistani strikes on the 7th night (two days earlier).}} No, NYT states that the attack on air defences in Lahore was in response to the alleged Pakistani attacks. The air defences in Lahore were targeted before the night of 9 May, but the purpose of attacking them was to clear the way for the larger offensive carried out on the night of 9 May. {{tq|In reality, the Pakistani strikes were made every night, including the 9th night itself.}} That is not the reality; most of these are Indian allegations, and The New York Times is not required to support them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Most of the western press took off Friday night because it was a weekend. That doesn't mean that nothing happened on Friday night. The Indian press reported it fine:

::::::{{talkquote|For the second consecutive night, Pakistan Friday launched swarms of drones targeting military installations in multiple cities along India’s northern and western borders.Bashaarat Masood, Amrita Nayak Dutta, [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/baramulla-to-barmer-india-blocks-second-wave-of-drone-attacks-9993720/ Baramulla to Barmer, India blocks second wave of drone attacks], The Indian Express, 10 May 2025. 08:54 IST.}}

::::::The press won't be able to cover everything because they won't have reporters everywhere. Only the government can have comprehensive data, and the government said 26 locations were struck that night.

::::::{{talkquote|Late Friday, the Indian Army reported that Pakistani drones had been sighted at 26 locations, from Baramulla in Kashmir to Bhuj in Gujarat. The list included key cities such as Srinagar, Jammu, Ferozepur, Pathankot, Jaisalmer, and Barmer, underscoring the geographic spread of the threat.[https://indianexpress.com/article/india/mea-press-conference-today-india-pakistan-conflict-9994199/ MEA Press Conference Today: Pakistan’s actions provocative and escalatory, tried to hit air base station in Punjab, says govt], The Indian Express, 10 May 2025.}}

::::::A house got bombed in Jammu,Namita Singh, [https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-pakistan-military-strike-pahalgam-b2748459.html Ceasefire reached after India and Pakistan trade missile strikes on air bases], Independent, 10 May 2025. and apparently three places in Ferozepur in Punjab, where people were injured.

::::::NYT was fast asleep. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Kautilya3 NYT is saying the same thing that the Indian press is reporting. The Indian press is reporting government claims, and NYT is saying the same — a government claim that {{tq|India claimed to have thwarted a Pakistani attempt to strike military targets across multiple cities}}. So what is your objection to changing the content to my revision when both the Indian press and NYT are saying the same thing? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You are gaslighting as usual. NYT only talked about the "second night" (7th night). Where did it talk about the third night and fourth night? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Kautilya3 Who is stopping you from adding content about the third and fourth night? You can include it with proper attribution to the Indian government or Indian media. The content can be expanded at any time—go ahead and do it. However, the existing content must also adhere to the cited source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If the fourth night is supposed to be when "Pakistan launched an immense barrage of drone and missile strikes", there is no mention of any Pakistani denial. "Pakistan launched". And, that is that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Kautilya3 The Pakistani denial pertains to India's claim of thwarting Pakistani attacks on the night of 7–8 May. It is true that there is no Pakistani denial regarding the attacks on the fourth night, which were part of Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos and were launched after Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases that same night. We seem to be going in circles now—if you still do not agree to the modified revision below, I will initiate a WP:3O. {{tq|On the night of 7–8 May, India claimed to have thwarted a Pakistani attempt to strike military targets across multiple cities. In response, it targeted air defence systems in Lahore, followed by key Pakistani military installations on the night of 9–10 May. Pakistan officially denied carrying out any attacks on the night of 7–8 May.}} As I mentioned, you are free to expand the content to include attributed statements from the Indian government and Indian media regarding the other nights. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is your interpretation that the "immense campaign" referred to the Bunyan-um Marsoos. NYT never even mentioned that term. Clary gives a much more thorough summary:

::::::::::{{tq|Its [India's] most intrusive and hard-hitting penetration occurred on the night of May 9, when it struck major airbases across Pakistan with BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles. It was a response to Pakistan’s incessant drone warfare against Indian military and civilian installations.}}

::::::::::He says that, in response to these Brahmos attacks, Pakistan launched Bunyan-um Marsoos. And, India responded with more strikes on airbases. That is crystal clear.

::::::::::I have fixed the text in accordance with NYT and Clary now. I doubt if we need any further WP:3O. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Kautilya3 Where are you getting Clary's summary from? I'm unable to find that exact text [https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/ here]. The New York Times is crystal clear too—it clearly mentions the events of Friday and Saturday first, followed by the Pakistani attacks. {{tq|On the nights of Friday and Saturday, the situation escalated rapidly to an air war with few holds barred, but in which ground forces had not been moved. Pakistan launched an immense campaign of drone and missile strikes, targeting military bases across several Indian cities — this time with acknowledgment from the Indian side that, although its air defenses had thwarted much of the barrage, there was damage to equipment and loss of security personnel.}} This aligns exactly with Pakistan's announcement of launching Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos on Friday night into Saturday morning, which took place after the Indian attack on Pakistani airbases. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry, I seem to have provided a quote from another source yesterday. Let us reset back.

::::::::::The source I did cite, [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/baramulla-to-barmer-india-blocks-second-wave-of-drone-attacks-9993720/ Indian Express] said:

::::::::::{{talkquote|The Indian Army said Pakistani drones were sighted at 26 locations – from Baramulla in J&K to Bhuj in Gujarat – along both the International Border and the Line of Control with Pakistan.}}

::::::::::And then Indian Express reported its own information, in addition to what the Army said.

::::::::::The Army statement came "late Friday" according to multiple sources: The Guardian on {{ProQuest|3202247251}}, [https://news.sky.com/story/ten-explosions-near-international-airport-in-india-administered-part-of-kashmir-officials-say-13364562 Sky News], [https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/pakistan-reports-indian-missile-attacks-3-air-bases-rcna205988 Associated Press], [https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-claims-india-targeted-three-airbases-say-reports/article69559871.ece The Hindu].

::::::::::The [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/operation-sindoor-live-updates-india-pakistan-border-airstrike-bahawalpur-9989832/ Indian Express livefeed] reported it at 23:48 IST on Friday.

::::::::::Interestingly, Reuters reported JD Vance calling Modi that evening and saying, {{tq|Washington "believed there was a high probability for dramatic escalation as the conflict entered its fourth day"}}. Then it says, hours later, the "dramatic escalation" came, attacking 26 locations. But it mixed up that information with Buyan-um Marsoos, which many other sources did as well. Modi is supposed to have responded saying, {{tq|any Pakistani escalation would be met by an even more forceful response}}.

::::::::::Your edits are trying to make all of this disappear! Lol. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Kautilya3 The Indian Express report is published on 10 May at 8:54 IST, they are reporting on the activities of preceding night which is the night during which India attacked Pakistani airbases and then Pakistan retaliated with Op Bunyan um Marsoos on 26 Indian location. The Guardian in ProQuest also says {{tq|Pakistan says retaliatory strikes under way after accusing India of targeting military basesby Shah Meer Baloch; Ellis-Petersen, Hannah.  The Guardian (Online) Guardian News & Media Limited. May 10, 2025.}}, it is clear by this that Pakistan launched retaliatory strikes on Friday night after India targeted Pakistani air bases. Something on The Associated Press {{tq| Pakistan says retaliation is underway after India fired missiles at 3 air bases}}, these are three examples from the sources you provided proving my point that these attacks happened on Friday night as part of Op Bunyan um Marsoos but currently the opening statement of that section is completely twisted around and you keep changing it to twist it further around while I am engaged in discussion with you here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I have expanded the content to include full details from the New York Times source and added an accessible Guardian article; both are reputable third-party sources. We should rely on these instead of partisan sources like The Indian Express or working papers. If you still disagree, I will seek a WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, I disagree. To claim that the Pakistani drone warfare of the Friday night was the same as the so-called Bunyan-um Marsoos, you need sources stating that the latter took place "late Friday", or sources that reported it by 23:48 IST on Friday [23:18 PKT Friday]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::::::::::}} @Kautilya3 You are being completely unreasonable and unrealistic here. You insist on retaining a revision that is not fully supported by the sources you are citing and reflects your personal interpretation of events, as opposed to the alternative revision which is detailed, backed by two reliable third-party sources, and provides a comprehensive rundown of events. I have already explained above how The New York Timesplaces the Pakistani attacks within the section discussing the events of Friday and Saturday. You also have [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/pakistan-accuses-india-targeting-three-military-bases-tensions-escalate The Guardian] stating…{{tq|On Saturday, India accused Pakistan of launching strikes on dozens of airbases and military headquarters across north India, using long-range weapons, drones and fighter aircraft. The accusations came a few hours after Pakistan said India had fired six surface-to-air missiles targeting three of Pakistan's most important military bases early on Saturday morning.}} You have [https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/pakistan-reports-indian-missile-attacks-3-air-bases-rcna205988 NBC / AP] saying {{tq|Pakistan says retaliation is underway after India fired missiles at 3 air bases}}. Apart from that you have many Pakistani sources as listed below saying Pakistani strikes happened after Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases. You have [https://www.dawn.com/news/1909977/Dawn] saying {{tq| “These actions are being carried out in response to India’s initial attack, which was an assault on our homeland, people and sovereignty,” the statement said, referring to tonight’s earlier Indian missile strikes against the Pakistan Air Force’s three airbases.}}, and you have [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2544980/india-carries-out-air-strikes-on-three-paf-airbases-all-assets-safe-dg-ispr Express Tribune] saying {{tq|Pakistan has initiated retaliatory action in response to the ongoing Indian aggression in the wee hours of Saturday, according to security sources. The operation has been officially named Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos.}}

• Note to the WP:3O volunteer: kindly advise whether [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1296459916&oldid=1296416998 this revision], as made by me, better represents the events in accordance with the sources compared to the existing content, first three sentences of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Strikes on Pakistani air bases and the section heading is under dispute here.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Source do state "In response" and that "in response" is to India's own unproven allegation of Pakistan carrying out attack and it thwarting them, if there is a problem of in response appearing after Pakistan's denial then we can move the denial to the next sentence like this: {{tq|On the night of 7–8 May, India claimed to have thwarted a Pakistani attempt to strike military targets across multiple cities. In response, it targeted air defence systems in Lahore, followed by key Pakistani military installations on the night of 9–10 May. Pakistan officially denied carrying out any attacks on the night of 7–8 May.}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have requested WP:3O for this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Indian government did two news briefings a day, one in the morning around 10 am, and another late evening. You are using the gap between these news briefings to construct a twisted account of the timeline. The drone warfare of Pakistan on Friday [9 May] night (which ends at midnight) was reported by multiple newspapers, as well as an Indian Army statement that was reported at 23:48 IST by The Indian Express. The Indian Army tweeted it at 23:22 IST [https://x.com/SpokespersonMoD/status/1920914711601967166]. Other news agencies (Assciated Press, Sky News and The Guardian) reported it as "late Friday".

:India's retaliation to these drone attacks, which probably had some missiles mixed in, came around 2 am. Pakistan lauched its own retaliation to these Indian attacks, under the name "Bunyan-um Marsoos", sometime after this. The precise time was not mentioned by any source, but we have accounts of explosions (the missiles being intercepted in the sky) early morning on Saturday, around 5 am.

:You are trying to claim that the Friday night drone attacks were themselves "Bunyan-um Marsoos". I have asked you to mention any source talking about this as occurring "late Friday", which you have failed to do.

:The Guardian kept rewriting their news article throughout the Friday night and Saturday morning. Even their [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/india-accuses-pakistan-drones-attack-cities-bases article] datelined 9 May, has some 10 May events thrown in. On ProQuest, there are two version of this article: {{ProQuest|3202191569}} and {{ProQuest|3202207720}}, the second one representing the updates. Their 10 May datelined articles are also available on ProQuest, before they updated them for the print version of their newspaper the next day. These early versions talk about the link between the Friday night drone warfare and the Indian retaliation.

:{{ProQuest|3202207740}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20250509233427/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/pakistan-accuses-india-targeting-three-military-bases-tensions-escalate captured at 00:34 GMT]:

:{{talkquote|The [Indian] attacks came hours after Indian [Army] said Pakistan had launched a fresh wave of drone strikes against India, and Pakistan alleged that India had fired ballistic missiles that fell in Indian territory.}}

:{{ProQuest|3202247251}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20250510012044/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/pakistan-accuses-india-targeting-three-military-bases-tensions-escalate captured at 02:20 GMT]:

:{{talkquote|India's alleged strikes on Pakistan came hours after Indian [Army] said Pakistan had launched yet another wave of drone attacks across 26 locations over the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir on Friday night. Explosions were heard near the airport in Srinagar, the main city in India-administered Kashmir.}}

:Your attempt to pass of this drone warfare that preceded Indian retatliation as "Bunyan-um Marsoos" which followed Indian attacks is despicable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Kautilya3 Read the current text in the article and review the sources—the current text says: {{tq|On 7 and 8 May 2025, as a retaliation to Pakistan's mass of drone incursions and missiles, while also denying that it had done anything at all, India struck its military sites, disabling some of the key air defence installations. In response to a further barrage of drone and missile strikes on the night of 9 May, Indian Armed Forces carried out multiple air-strike operations, but this time with an expanded scope to target Pakistani military installations.}} Almost all the sources describe it as an Indian claim or allegation. I have no objection if it is presented as such. What matters is that the language remains faithful to the sources, and the wording in my revision is closer to how the sources actually describe it. If you are willing to attribute all Pakistani attacks to Indian claims or Indian media—and maintain language that accurately reflects the sources—then I have no issue. However, based on your previous comments, I got the impression that you were denying that Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos occurred or that any strikes took place following India's attacks on Pakistani airbases. I propose the following resolution: let's change the section heading to "Reciprocal strikes", revise the text so that it accurately reflects what the cited sources actually state, and attribute all Pakistani attacks prior to Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos as allegations by India—or attribute them to Indian media if the source used is from Indian media. Additionally, the section should be expanded to include the strikes that were part of Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. We can use The Indian Express for the attacks mentioned in the tweet, but I maintain that both the New York Times and The Guardian are referring to Pakistani strikes that took place after India's attacks on Pakistani airbases. These two sources cover the Pakistani attacks that were officially acknowledged by Pakistan. In contrast, the tweet and The Indian Express refer to Indian allegations, and these should be presented as such. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't accept the claim that I said anything about Operation Bunyan-um Marsoos. You brought it in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1296254273 here] and persisted with that theory despite all the evidence to the contrary.

:::Now, you say, these are only Indian claims. Almost all Indian claims have corroboration from independent sources (The Hindu and Indian Express are independent sources, and so is Dawn). India also has plenty of web-based news media that are independent: The Wire, The Print, Scroll.in, The News Minute, Newslaundry etc.

:::For example:

:::* [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/8/pakistan-says-it-downed-25-indian-drones-after-attacks-escalate-tensions Multiple explosions, blackout in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Jammu city], Al Jazeera, 8 May 2025.

:::* Yashraj Sharma, [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/9/missiles-in-skies-panic-in-indian-frontier-cities-as-war-clouds-gather ‘Missiles in skies’: Panic in Indian frontier cities as war clouds gather], Al Jazeera, 9 May 2025.

:::* Peter Aitken, Gabe Whisnant, [https://www.newsweek.com/kashmir-airport-hit-ten-explosions-amid-india-pakistan-conflict-report-2070356 Kashmir Airport Hit by Ten Explosions Amid India-Pakistan Conflict: Report], Newsweek, 9 May 2025.

:::* Sharan Poovanna, [https://theprint.in/india/drone-attacks-interceptions-play-out-over-jammu-skies-for-second-consecutive-night/2620751/ Drone attacks, interceptions play out over Jammu skies for second consecutive night], ThePrint, 9 May 2025.

:::* [https://thewire.in/security/projectiles-appear-to-be-coming-waves-jammu-plunged-in-darkness-loud-explosions-heard ‘Projectiles Appear To Be Coming in Waves’: Jammu Plunged in Darkness, Loud Explosions Heard], The Wire, 9 May 2025.

:::So it is not correct to claim that there were only Indian claims. The news media might not have known the extent of the Pakistani attacks. But they knew that they had occurred. Even the NYT summary had the subtext:

:::{{talkquote|Pakistan’s astonishing official response — a complete denial that it had done anything on the second night — left two explanations for the events: that it was just a probing mission, which Pakistan did not want to distract from the actual retaliation that was coming, or that it was an initial retaliation that had not succeeded.}}

:::Note the use of "the events", not claims or allegations. And Pakistan's denial was found "astonishing" and needed explanation. It wasn't credible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kautilya3 {{tq|I don't accept the claim that I said anything about Operation Bunyan-um Marsoos. You brought it in here and persisted with that theory despite all the evidence to the contrary.}} I was talking in reference to the NYT source and I still claim that NYT source is in fact talking about attacks which were launched after Indian attacks on Pakistani airbases. The sources you presented in your last comment, I looked at two Al Jazeera ones, when they refer to explosions in Jammu, they never say that those were launched by Pakistan, instead both Al Jazeera sources have Pakistani denial in them and when they actually say that Pakistan was attacking Jammu then they attribute it to Indian government, here are the quotes from those two sources, first AJ source say {{tq|The news agency Reuters, citing an unnamed Indian official, reported Pakistani attacks in Akhnoor, Samba, Kathua and multiple other locations in Jammu…Pakistan is denying that it launched attacks in the Indian cities of Pathankot and Jaisalmer and Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir. “These claims are entirely unfounded, politically motivated, and part of a reckless propaganda campaign aimed at maligning Pakistan,” the country’s foreign ministry said in a statement.}}, the second AJ source say {{tq|Eight missiles were fired from Pakistan-origin drones towards Jammu and nearby areas of Satwari and Samba, also targeting military stations in Udhampur and Indian Punjab’s Pathankot, said India’s Ministry of Defence….Shortly after, Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar denied that the country had targeted any locations in Indian-administered Kashmir or across the international border.}} As I said almost all international third party sources attribute these claims to Indian government for any attacks prior to Indian attacks on Pakistani airbases, we should not wiki voice only based on Indian sources, if you can bring me an international third party source which says Pakistan launched attacks without attributing the statement to Indian government then I am more than willing to do that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Can you explain [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1296080098&oldid=1296077649 this mass revert] of yours? What do you mean by…{{tq| I am not sure what you are doing here; does the source mix up the strikes on the two days, or are you doing it?}}, if you are unsure about something, why wouldn't you verify it before reverting? And if you have objections to specific modifications, why would you revert everything wholesale? In response to your edit summary, I neither mixed anything up nor did the source—though I agree the source is not clearly written. The original addition appears to have misrepresented the chronology. Please read the source carefully and respond. Also, kindly revert your mass undo and only roll back the specific changes you genuinely object to, even if it requires a bit of extra effort. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

: Already explained above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I couldn't revert any edit specifically. All your edits were mixed up. I don't have any objections to your edits outside that section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

@Kautilya3 Here is a proposal to move toward a solution: how about taking small steps toward resolution, rather than focusing on multi-day hostilities and getting lost in complexity? Instead of introducing sources that are not currently cited in the article, we should concentrate on the sources that are already being used and address the content event by event, day by day—while also ensuring that the language aligns as closely as possible with the cited sources. Following this approach, let's begin by discussing the opening sentence of that section.

Current version:

{{tq|On 7 and 8 May 2025, as a retaliation to Pakistan's mass of drone incursions and missiles, while also denying that it had done anything at all, India struck its military sites, disabling some of the key air defence installations.{{cite news |title=What We Know About How the 4-Day India-Pakistan Clashes Unfolded | work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/asia/india-pakistan-what-we-know.html?login=email&auth=login-email |access-date=12 May 2025 |agency=The New York Times | last1=Mashal | first1=Mujib | date=11 May 2025}}}}

Proposed version:

{{tq|On 8 May, after Indian officials reported having thwarted an attempted Pakistani strike on military targets across multiple border towns, India escalated by striking sensitive military infrastructure, including air defence systems in Lahore. Pakistani authorities issued a complete denial of conducting any hostile action that night.}}

Supported coverage from source:

{{tq|On the second day, as a diplomatic push for an off-ramp intensified, India said it had thwarted a Pakistani attempt overnight to hit military targets across a dozen border cities and towns. In response, it had taken the kind of action that analysts say almost always escalates a conflict: It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore…. Pakistan’s astonishing official response — a complete denial that it had done anything on the second night — left two explanations for the events: that it was just a probing mission that Pakistan did not want to distract from the actual retaliation that was coming, or that it was an initial retaliation that had not succeeded. But India nonetheless took the opportunity to damage crucial Pakistani military sites, and with that all bets were off.}}

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriffIsInTown (talk • contribs)

:: It looks like we are back to square-A. I recall saying right in the beginning that this section is about Indian airstrikes in Pakistani territory, and therefore Pakistani denials do not have a place here. They have already been stated enough in the timeline section. What pertains to Indian airstrikes is all that belongs here. I have inserted half-a-sentence due to your persistence. Unless there are sources that link Pakistani denials to Indian airstrikes, that is the maximum WP:WEIGHT that can be accorded to them.

:: I can accept your point that the "mass of deone incursions and missiles" was attributed to Pakistan by the Indian government but not by any independent source (as far as visible right now). So I am happy to revise it to:

:: {{tq|On 8 May 2025, as a retaliation to the mass of drone incursions and missiles, for which India held Pakistan responsible despite its denials of having done anything at all, India struck its military sites, disabling some of the key air defence installations. That kind of an action generally escalates the conflict according to analysts.}}

:: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 How about aligning the wording more closely with the language used in the source, so as to avoid any POV connotations? {{tq|On 8 May 2025, in response to a series of drone incursions and missile attacks, which India attributed to Pakistan despite its denials of involvement, India targeted Pakistani military sites, disabling several key air defence installations.}} or even shorter {{tq|On 8 May 2025, India carried out strikes on Pakistani military sites in response to a large-scale drone and missile attack that it blamed on Pakistan, despite Pakistani denials of involvement.}}

:I think the sentence about the analyst is unnecessary. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::The first version is ok by me. The second one still suggests some kind of linkage between Pakistani denials and Indian strikes. I think the Indians would have paid no attention to Pakistani denials because they are routine by now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kautilya3 I am considering further changes to the opening statement of that section to bring it more in line with the cited source; I intend to revise it as follows. {{tq|On 8 May 2025, in response to a series of drone incursions and missile attacks, which India attributed to Pakistan despite its denials of involvement, India struck sensitive military targets in the Pakistani city of Lahore, particularly air defence systems.}} The New York Times source does not state that the 8 May attacks in Pakistan "disabled several key air defence installations"; instead, it states that…{{tq|It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore.}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::i don't think so. Clary mentions 11 sites that India attempted to strike. While ISPR claimed that Pakistan neutralised all but one of those, no one knows. We do know that on the 9th night, Pakistan was left defenceless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kautilya3 Here is what Clary says {{tq|According to an official Indian briefing, the counterattack targeted air defense radars and systems at a "number of locations in Pakistan."}} and {{tq|The result, India assessed, was a "neutralized" air defense radar in Lahore.}} and {{tq|Pakistani sources also reported that 11 sites were subject to attack and/or witnessed Pakistani intercepts of Indian drones on that May 8 morning. Pakistan's military spokesmen acknowledged that one of the attacks injured four Pakistani soldiers and caused "partial damage" to equipment, perhaps validating at least in part India's claim of having neutralized an air defense radar.}} First of all, we cannot use Clary without attribution, so his account cannot be preferred over that of The New York Times. Even if we give his statements some credence, he only refers to the targeting of a number of locations—not the disablement of any defence installation—and attributes that information to Indian sources. He also attributes the claim of neutralisation of an air defence radar in Lahore to India. When he mentions 11 sites, he attributes that to anonymous Pakistani sources, and it has already been discussed on this article’s talk page that content based solely on anonymous sources should not be included. Taking all of this into account, here is another modified version: {{tq|On 8 May 2025, India carried out strikes on multiple locations in Pakistan, targeting air defence radars and systems, including in Lahore, where Indian assessments indicated one radar installation was neutralised. Pakistani sources reported attacks or drone intercepts at 11 sites that morning, with official acknowledgement of four soldiers injured and partial damage to military equipment.}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Kautilya3 Still waiting for a response here — is it okay if I go ahead and make the changes as I suggested? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think India limited itself to claiming damage in Lahore:

:::::::{{talkquote|Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told Reuters that no military sites or the air defence system in the country’s second-largest city of Lahore sustained any damage from Indian drones. India said its army struck and damaged air defence radars and systems at multiple locations in Pakistan.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/8/pakistan-says-it-downed-25-indian-drones-after-attacks-escalate-tensions Multiple explosions, blackout in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Jammu city], Al Jazeera, 8 May 2025.}}

:::::::I have adjusted your text accordingly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1297356804&oldid=1297291177]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Kautilya3 Thank you for the changes, let's tackle the next half sentence now, I propose changing {{tq|In response to a further barrage of drone and missile strikes on the night of 9 May,}} to {{tq|In response to what India described as a further barrage of Pakistani drone and missile strikes on the night of 9 May,}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Kautilya3 Waiting for your response here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The Indian Express said:

:::::::::{{talkquote|For the second consecutive night, Pakistan Friday launched swarms of drones targeting military installations in multiple cities along India’s northern and western borders.}}

:::::::::At least some of this was corroborated by international media as well. What is the problem with the wording? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Kautilya3 Almost all international media outlets attribute these claims to the Indian government or military. This issue has been raised multiple times, and there has been some agreement during discussions at RSN that when reliable third-party international sources are available, they should be preferred over Pakistani and Indian sources. Sources from the respective countries should be used only for claims explicitly attributed to those countries. Can we rely on international sources and attribute the claims to India? Alternatively, if we must use The Indian Express, then the attribution should be to The Indian Express, rather than Wikipedia stating it in its own voice based solely on an Indian source. Even The Indian Express, in its opening paragraph, attributes the claim to the Indian Army. In any case, The Indian Express should not outweigh multiple international sources that clearly attribute these claims to India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sure, if the Indian newspapers were contradicting the international media then I would agree with you. When they are only supplementing with their own information, what is the problem? I have already mentioned that the international media would have limited resources in India/Pakistan and their interest in coverage would also be limited. It is not a Wikipedia policy that reliable information should be omitted based on the nationality of the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The Indian Express article had 7 authors, indicating that they culled information from multiple locations. It is the best source available for covering the wide-ranging attacks of Pakistan on Indian territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Agreed. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

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

@Kautilya3 International media outlets are attributing the claims to Indian government authorities, and even The Indian Express report begins with such attribution. The rest of the report is a continuation of that framing—they likely did not feel the need to repeat the attribution throughout. As I mentioned earlier, when multiple international sources attribute these claims to the Indian government, their collective weight cannot be overridden by a couple of lines in a national source, especially when those international sources are consistent and non-contradictory. I am not saying that we should discard sources based on nationality. I am saying that we should attribute them, especially since most Pakistani and Indian media tend to reflect the positions of their respective governments. We already have Dawn attributed in at least a few places in the article, and Pakistani media in general are being attributed—so what's wrong with attributing The Indian Express in the same way? Attribution here doesn't dilute the content—it enhances its neutrality, particularly when dealing with claims in a conflict-related context. Also, your point that we cannot discredit sources based on nationality cuts both ways—by that logic, we also cannot dismiss international sources on the basis of a personal view that they have limited access or interest in India–Pakistan affairs. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 The number of authors does not necessarily add weight, especially when the information is compiled from multiple reporters—attribution can easily get lost during the editing process. This happens frequently in journalism: a claim attributed at the beginning may be referred to later without repetition, and we as Wikipedia editors should consider the article as a whole, not cherry-pick unqualified lines later in the piece. In this case, sources that explicitly attribute the claim about the 26 locations to the Indian Army or government clearly outweigh the two unqualified lines in question. The Indian Express source itself attributes the claim to the Indian Army early on, which sets the tone for interpreting the rest of the article. That makes it misleading to cite two isolated sentences as if they override that attribution. Moreover, another Indian Express source mentioned above also attributes this information to the Indian Army. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::The Indian Express article begins with the paragraph I quoted above. Once again:

::{{talkquote|For the second consecutive night, Pakistan Friday launched swarms of drones targeting military installations in multiple cities along India’s northern and western borders.}}

::You seem to be confusing [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede Lede] for the first paragraph. If one newspaper has no knowledge of the facts on the ground and another newspaper happens to have it, it doesn't mean that we should pretend to not to have the knowledge either.

::The Indian Express also published another story around the same time focused on Punjab:

::* Raakhi Jagga, Kamaldeep Singh Brar, Anju Agnihotri Chaba, [https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/punjab-india-pakistan-conflict-amritsar-bathinda-ferozpur-drone-borders-9994008/ Red alert in Amritsar, Bathinda; 3 of a family injured in Ferozepur, drone sightings, blasts keep Punjab border districts awake], The Indian Express, 10 May 2025. 09:16 IST.

::and plenty of coverage in its Live blog:

::* [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/operation-sindoor-live-updates-india-pakistan-border-airstrike-bahawalpur-9989832/ India-Pakistan News LIVE Updates: ‘India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire’, announces Donald Trump], 10 May 2025.

::CNN livefeed had at least two stories that night, one at 9:12 pm PKT talking about Jammu, and another at 10:01 pm PKT talking about Pathankot.

::* [https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-operation-sindoor-05-09-25-intl-hnk May 9, 2025 - India-Pakistan news], CNN, 10 May 2025.

::So I maintain that there is independent verification of Pakistani drone strikes throughout the night of 9-10 May. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sky News had a couple of lines in its report on 10 May:

::* [https://news.sky.com/story/ten-explosions-near-international-airport-in-india-administered-part-of-kashmir-officials-say-13364562 Ten explosions near international airport in India-administered part of Kashmir, officials say], Sky News, 10 May 2025, 01:27 BST [05:27 PKT]

::{{talkquote|The blasts followed blackouts caused by multiple projectiles, which were seen in the sky above the city of Jammu earlier on Friday.}}

::{{talkquote|Explosions were also heard in the Sikh holy city of Amritsar, in the neighbouring Indian state of Punjab, according to Reuters.}}

::-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it time to remove Trumps claims per this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89ew9wde3lo? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Slatersteven No, but we can add India's denial along with the date it was issued. It took them over a month to deny it, which could imply that Trump may have been correct at the time, but now they are walking back from what they had committed to him. It could mean anything, but we can include Trump's claim with the date he made it, and India's denial with the date it was issued. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::India officially claimed it since 10th may. King Ayan Das (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Trump is the last person in the world anyone should be taking on his word. And what is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1296748764 this edit]? You have been repeatedly told to not discard discussions and continue with contentious/challenged edits, yet you persist with this edit warring. There is no consensus for a separate section as such, frivolous nominations for the Nobel do not any in shape affect the previous discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think this article needs major changes, not just in the 'Impact' (or proposed 'Aftermath') section, but also in other areas, such as the 'Aerial Skirmish' subsection. Can we discuss this here? King Ayan Das (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@King Ayan Das Your edit summary "seek consensus first"—but how can anyone seek consensus if you're not participating in the DRN thread, which I've open for several days now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gotitbro The previous discussion about not having a separate section applied only to the content available at that time. If new content emerges and an editor believes it does not fit within the existing sections but would be more appropriate in a new section, they are free to create one. The earlier consensus pertains only to past content, not future additions. If you truly want this matter resolved, why are you not participating in the DRN? I've had it open for several days now. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What has that to do with the inclusion of Trump's claims to have brokered peace? Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Slatersteven [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1296748764 The edit] they are referring to added the "Aftermath" section, which is the subject of an open DRN discussion they have not participated in since I initiated it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::My reply also pertains to this inclusion (as I clearly noted "frivolous nominations for the Nobel do not any in shape affect the previous discussion"):

::::::{{talk quote|On 21 June, Pakistan announced it would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in brokering the ceasefire.{{cite news|last1=Matza|first1=Max|title=Pakistan to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyx5yw8y28o.amp|work=BBC News|date=21 June 2025|access-date=21 June 2025}}}}

::::::There is no evidence Trump played any role in the ceasefire, the only source for this is Trump himself. The addition assumes a priori that he brokered a ceasefire ("citing his role in brokering..."). Moreover the critetia for nomination is that almost none exists (Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination) and the actually accepted nominations are never publicised (i.e. we will not know whether he was ever accepted unless he wins). That is to say this is exactly the kind of newsy WP:TRUMPCRUFT stuff that is undue and as noted misleading.

::::::There are two people who one should be very vary about publicising their claims of achievements on enwiki, the first is right here and the second is fortunately out of office. Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|frivolous nominations for the Nobel}}, That appears to be your opinion; I do not see the source characterising it as a frivolous nomination. {{tq|There is no evidence Trump played any role in the ceasefire, the only source for this is Trump himself. The addition assumes a priori that he brokered a ceasefire.}} We are attributing this to the Pakistani announcement, as reflected in the source. The content does not present the claim that Trump brokered the ceasefire as a fact; rather, it clearly states that Pakistan is announcing his nomination and attributing the ceasefire to his role. Whether he meets the criteria for nomination or whether the nominations are published is irrelevant. It is sufficient for inclusion that Pakistan—an equal party to the conflict—credited Trump with brokering the ceasefire and nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. WP:TRUMPCRUFT does not apply here, as this is not a self-promotional claim by Trump but rather a statement made by a third party, Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Read TRUMPCRUFT and you should know how it is cited and used by editors, it pertains to everthing about him does not matter whether he states it or someone else does. And this primarily hinges on the fact that Trump's been craving for a Nobel ever since the Obama one. We should not be gratifying him by adding a "nomination" for a nomination (the addition is still misleading as the final nomination list is made by the Prize's committee, this is a submission if anything aka "frivolous"). Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I read it and disagree with you — I believe you are misinterpreting that essay. If that were the case, we wouldn't be adding anything about him to Wikipedia. This is highly relevant, as one party to the conflict gives him credit for brokering the ceasefire and nominating him for the Nobel Prize. We are presenting the content in accordance with the source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have spent enough time at Trump related articles and discussions to know how and when to avoid Trump cruft. An unverifiable submission for the nomination to the Peace Prize for him exactly falls under that. This is needless cruft regardless of the fact that news media are reporting on it now (not news etc. also apply). 'Highly relevant' is gratification and bunkum when no one knows what he was twiddling about when Rubio and Vance were calling the capitals. Gotitbro (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Gotitbro Well, I disagree. Simply claiming that you’ve spent enough time editing a certain topic and therefore know what qualifies as Trump cruft is not a valid argument. I could just as easily say that I know enough to determine what is relevant and what merits inclusion. If Trump had merely claimed that Pakistan was nominating him for the Nobel Prize without any verification from Pakistan, I would have considered it cruft. But in this case, it is Pakistan officially announcing the nomination and acknowledging his role — that, in my view, does not fall under cruft. As for Rubio and Vance, they work for him and cannot act without his approval. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"I believe you are misinterpreting that essay" is what that was primarily referring to. For the rationale for non-inclusion WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNEWS should be P&G enough for I repeat an unverifiable submission for a nomination for the Peace Prize (that is how far-off we are from any notion of notability). Gotitbro (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Gotitbro The announcement is significant in the context of this conflict, as an equal party to the conflict is acknowledging the role Donald Trump played — to the extent that they are nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not necessary for the submission to have actually occurred; the announcement precedes the submission. The Wikipedia content does not claim that the submission has already taken place — it states that Pakistan has announced the nomination. WP:NOTNEWS outlines four categories: original reporting, news reports, who's who, and celebrity gossip and diaries. Under which of these categories do you believe this content falls? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I would say 1 and 4 and would further drop Wikipedia:Recentism here. That it is only an announcement for a submission for a nomination only further solidifies my argument. If the rationale is that we need to acknowledge Pakistan's statement on Trump's role, we already do under the ceasefire section "Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif said that Trump had played a "pivotal and paramount role" in facilitating the truce along with representatives of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UK, UN, and China."

::::::::::::::Nobel Prize and Trump, unless he actually wins it (not happening), should be nowhere near an encyclopedia. Gotitbro (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

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

@Gotitbro Do you really think the coverage by the BBC and numerous other sources of Pakistan's announcement of a Nobel nomination for Trump—specifically in relation to his role during this conflict—falls under original reporting or celebrity gossip? WP:RECENTISM concerns heavy reliance on recent events or media coverage in article creation; it does not apply to the inclusion of one or two sentences that are clearly relevant to the topic. The entire conflict is recent, so by that logic, the whole article could be labelled as recentist. When an event is recent, all developments surrounding it are also recent—so how do we draw the line between what is appropriate and what is not? If this were being added to Trump's own article, then yes, the conditions of winning the prize or at least verification of the nomination would be necessary. But the scope of this article is different. Here, it is about acknowledgment by one party to the conflict, and I believe that merits inclusion, regardless of whether he ultimately wins the prize. {{tq|Pakistan's statement on Trump's role, we already do under the ceasefire section "Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif said that Trump had played a "pivotal and paramount role" in facilitating the truce}}, that raises the question: if we can include this, then what is wrong with including the announcement of his nomination? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Your DRN application was made in haste in the middle of a discussion (much like your edits at this article) without any prior intimation of it. A WP:FORUMSHOPPING tactic rather than an actual attempt at mediation and consensus building, further highlighted by the poor formulation of the dispute there. I will reply if and when I feel it to be apt, had deliberately taken a break for the time being but noticed this edit warring behaviour of yours here and had to reply (the fact that a DRN exists and yet you continue with the exact same edits, by bizzarely limiting and interpreting consensus as you see fit, is exactly what constitues edit warring). I will take this to the apt forum if I see this repeated. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Gotitbro

:::::*{{tq|Your DRN application was made in haste in the middle of a discussion}} Seriously? We discussed this under the "Aftermath" section from 13 June at 4:30 until 16 June at 23:36. We exhausted all available options there. I went to DRN after you said…[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1295907432 "This is my final word on this"] — signalling that you were not going to concede your position, even after you had agreed to include the Rahul Gandhi part following a thorough discussion between us. But then King Ayan Das (KAD) showed up and removed it, claiming there was no consensus. This was very frustrating — we both engaged in extensive discussion over three whole days, while KAD stayed on the sidelines. Once we reached an agreement, they came in and removed the content. In such a situation, it should have been them seeking a new consensus to justify removal, since the inclusion was the result of a detailed discussion between two editors.

:::::*{{tq|without any prior intimation of it}} Opening a DRN discussion does not require prior intimation; leaving a notice on the other editor's talk page is what's required — and I did leave one.

:::::*{{tq|A WP:FORUMSHOPPING tactic rather than an actual attempt at mediation and consensus building, further highlighted by the poor formulation of the dispute there.}} You should WP:AGF — I've been trying to work with you and engage in discussion for many days now. I'm not sure what you mean by "poor formulation" — it doesn't matter how I phrased it; that is my summary of the dispute. You're free to state your own summary in your allotted section, and hopefully, a moderator will be able to help us resolve the issue.

:::::*{{tq|the fact that a DRN exists and yet you continue with the exact same edits}}, The DRN was not about the new content — the paragraph added by KAD and the new content about Trump. In my view, this new content belonged in a different section titled "Aftermath," as these developments were occurring in the aftermath of the conflict. We cannot bar all future editors from placing new content into a new section simply because you objected to older content being placed in a different section. I did not restore any of the content under discussion at DRN.

:::::Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::You cannot discard active discussions and methods of resolution and go ahead and add essentially the same thing (political "Aftermath" section), does not matter if the content is slightly different. This is about spinning-off a section and filling it with political POV, absolutely the same thing you took to DRN.

::::::Yes that was my final word about the parliamentary session and spinoff section, a courtesy would have been to let editors know here that you were going ahead with a DRN/RfC etc. The poor hasty filing is exactly one of the reasons I have been unwilling to take it up, so it does matter.

::::::I have AGF since the beginning, but when an editor is repeatedly dismissive and goes ahead and edit wars over edits he knows are already contested and under discussion, such assumptions will be strained. Gotitbro (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gotitbro It should be obvious to you that if you are attempting to disallow and WP:CENSOR relevant content without being able to convince me why it should be excluded from Wikipedia, I will escalate the matter — whether that be through WP:3O, WP:DRN, or an RFC. I followed the proper procedure by notifying you after filing the DRN, which I did after a lengthy discussion with you, during which you were unable to justify its exclusion. This was further prompted by a third editor disregarding the agreement that had been reached between you and me. I cannot keep wasting time going in circles. If we are at a stalemate, I will pursue the next option. Please participate in the DRN so that we can resolve this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The onus is not on me when I am not the one making frivolous additions to advance specific view points. Neither can I raptly engage my time with shoddily made opening arguments at other forums. "Escalate" is not the term you should be using for dispute resolution and censorship is an unserious citation when the question is about the due-ness of cruft (even though I had left contesting Gandhi) and lest it be reminded that the "lengthy" discussion was about the undue and crystal addition of a special session (taking place this very week) to misleadingly imply a governmental renegation. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Gotitbro You are entitled to your opinions, but I disagree with the claim that I made any frivolous additions or attempted to advance specific viewpoints. My additions were supported by reliable sources and were relevant to the conflict. I made an effort to work with you and remove any content to which you had a reasonable objection, but I cannot accommodate unreasonable ones. {{tq|Neither can I raptly engage my time with shoddily made opening arguments at other forums}}, can you explain what you consider shoddy about that DRN thread? "Escalate" means taking the matter to the next level, and all the mechanisms mentioned are considered next steps beyond an article talk page discussion. The Gandhi addition was removed by King Ayan Das (KAD), and when I contested its removal, you said "you relented," which KAD interpreted as you not wholeheartedly agreeing to its inclusion. Do you still have no objection to adding Rahul Gandhi's statement? If so, I can re-add it so that at least we can put one matter behind us. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Gandhi is a non-official person and we can't add his POV in impact or proposed Aftermath section. I already added Indian official position in impact section. King Ayan Das (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@King Ayan Das Gandhi is the main opposition leader of India, and it matters when he states that the country's Prime Minister surrendered — his statement is relevant to this conflict. I did not object to your inclusion of the Indian official position, but there is no policy that says only official positions can be included. His statement is notable, was covered by many reliable sources, and directly relates to this conflict. It merits inclusion. This falls under WP:CENSOR — you included content that aligned with your view (which I did not object to), but you are disallowing content you disagree with. Since we are unable to reach consensus here, please participate in the DRN thread. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Opposition leader has no relation with Indian government. It is a parliamentary post. King Ayan Das (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@King Ayan Das Again, who says only the government's position can be included? The opposition leader holds a significant position in a democracy. If it were merely a routine criticism of how the conflict was handled, it might not warrant inclusion — but when the criticism rises to the level of accusing the Prime Minister of surrendering, that merits inclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Since a DRN has been opened, I will follow with my reply there. Gotitbro (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Gotitbro Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I shouldn't have to repeat this 'announcement of a submission for a nomination' that is how way out of notability we are here. This is clearly the type of material that should be nowhere near our project. News, recentism, undue are exactly the kind of policies and guidelines that apply to this cruft. Your repeated contention was that the notability stems from one party crediting Trump and I said we already do, announcement of a submission for a nomination is no way near notable no matter who announces it. This is the first instance where I am seeing announcements for submissions for any award being inserted at enwiki, for the Peace Prize I have not seen anything beyond actual nominations. Gotitbro (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Gotitbro {{tq|This is the first instance where I am seeing announcements for submissions for any award being inserted at enwiki}}, please see 2009 Nobel Peace Prize#Nominations and announcements. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::2009 Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination and announcement is the correct link. It clearly nowhere lists 'announcements of submissions for nominations', it is about "the announcement" and "the nomination" of the winner Obama (though it does list a few other nominations). Gotitbro (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And just to illustrate how frivolous this cruft is. [https://ktla.com/news/u-s-rep-nominates-president-trump-for-nobel-peace-prize/ Another one] where he has been nominated for the Iran–Israel war, and [https://idag.no/nominerte-donald-trump-til-nobels-fredspris/19.48459 another one] where he was nominated for the Gaza war and [https://kyivindependent.com/ukrainian-mp-proposes-trump-for-nobel-peace-prize/ another one] for the Russo-Ukrainian War. None of these mention this cruft in their articles, so we have precedent for this. I will be going ahead with a removal in light of this. Gotitbro (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Gotitbro None of these examples represent government- or country-level nominations made by a party to the conflict. The U.S. representative was not a party to the war, nor was the professor from Ohio. The Ukrainian MP was acting independently, and his nomination had nothing to do with the Ukrainian government or Ukraine as a state. We do not apply past examples blindly; each piece of content must be assessed within its own context and on its own merits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just so we are clear government's do not make nominations as a whole, parliamentarians and cabinet members do [among others], here read Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination. The examples are nominations [not announcements for submissions] and their disclusion from the respective articles highlights the crufty nature of this blabber.

::::::Again I repeat what you have added has no precedent, actually goes against it, I will now go ahead with the removal. Gotitbro (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Another Believer|Zigzig20s|FeralOink|Mgasparin|R. G. Checkers|Srich32977|ElijahPepe}} Pinging editors from the Trump task force for comments.

:::::::Summarizing: Whether Trump's supposed* nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize should be included in this article. I argue this is frivolous WP:TRUMPCRUFT and WP:UNDUE (also per WP:NOTNEWS). It also essentially is against precedent as can be gauged by the disclusion of his supposed nominations for the Gaza war by [https://idag.no/nominerte-donald-trump-til-nobels-fredspris/19.48459 Anat Alon-Beck], the Russo-Ukrainian War by Oleksandr Merezhko, and the latest Iran–Israel war by Buddy Carter at the respective conflict articles [note the nominations for the prize are actually made by lawmakers, academic professors etc. (Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination)].

:::::::*Supposed: As only an announcement for the submission has been made [two-steps below even a nomination], the final nominations themselves are guarded by the prize committee. Gotitbro (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If there were more details between Trump and Pakistan, I would support mentioning that Pakistan nominated Trump somewhere, i.e. if there was a paragraph dedicated to Trump's communications with Pakistan. Otherwise, I'm not sure it warrants inclusion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|ElijahPepe}} Yes, there is more content on Trump's role in the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Agreement section, which currently reads: {{tq|United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that both nations would discuss "a broad set of issues at a neutral site" and that he and Vice President JD Vance had extensively corresponded with senior officials on both sides.[152] Hours later, following ceasefire violations, Indian officials had not yet voiced readiness for talks.[153] US president Donald Trump made a post on social media about the ceasefire around late noon IST/PKT, prior to the official announcements by the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers.[154] Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif stated that Trump had played a "pivotal and paramount role" in facilitating the truce along with representatives of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UK, UN, and China.[155] Thanking the heads of India and Pakistan, President Trump vowed to enhance trade "substantially" with both nations.[156]}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Another Believer|Zigzig20s|FeralOink|Mgasparin|R. G. Checkers|Srich32977|ElijahPepe}} The content being discussed comprises the last two sentences of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Impact. It was originally intended for a new section titled "Aftermath", along with other developments that occurred following the conflict. However, the creation of that new section was also opposed. The content currently reads: {{tq|On 21 June, Pakistan announced it would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in brokering the ceasefire. Pakistan credited Trump's diplomatic intervention, though India denied any U.S. mediation.{{cite news|last1=Matza|first1=Max|title=Pakistan to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyx5yw8y28o.amp|work=BBC News|date=21 June 2025|access-date=21 June 2025}}}} Please provide your feedback on whether it merits inclusion.

::::::: -- Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gotitbro The only example that can be considered somewhat comparable is the nomination by a Ukrainian MP; however, the scope of the Russia–Ukraine war differs significantly from the India–Pakistan conflict. The Russia–Ukraine war has been ongoing for years and continues to this day, so including content based solely on a single MP's statement would be considered cruft. In contrast, the India–Pakistan conflict concluded after four days, with Trump publicly claiming that he and his administration played a role in ending it—and one of the parties to the conflict, Pakistan, acknowledged that effort. As I've said, we cannot compare apples with oranges. Regarding precedent, there is always a first time—new content is added to Wikipedia regularly without any precedent. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is why his claims do not belong here, they are just his claims, being used to promote his claim for a Nobel prize, they are puffery, not anything more. When (and if) he wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, we can mention it, so why not wait untill he does? Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Slatersteven This is not his claim; it is Pakistan's announcement in recognition of his efforts to defuse the conflict. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I am in agreement with Sheriff in this subsection, particularly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1297096060 this commentary and rationale]. Pinging ElijahPepe, please see the source quote I provided in the following subsection ("What did Trump do?), about the role of Marco Rubio, per his assignment by Trump. (BTW I hurt my right hand and can barely type, so I can't be as verbose as usual.) Just scroll down, and you'll see sourcing for the crucial role played by the Trump administration, which, I would think, should have at least some inclusion in the article given that it was pivotal to winding down the conflict. I similarly infer justification for mention of Pakistan nominating Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not WP:TRUMPCRUFT unlike the Wikipedia articles devoted to Trump as infuriated infant balloon, one-time appearance of Trump caricatured as an inflatable rat, temporary wooden Dump Trump statue in a water fountain in Trafalgar Square, etc.--FeralOink (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@FeralOink Thank you for your feedback. We've been bumping our heads over these two lines for far too long. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{not a forum}}

:{{ping|Slatersteven}}, Trump did stop the Pakistan Army from pulling out the nukes. Who else do you think stopped them? The Pakistani PM? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::But that falls under OR. It's understandable that the Pakistan Army wouldn't defy their American masters. It was more about India targeting US assets and shared airbases in Pakistan that compelled Trump to intervene. But again, this might be considered original research again. Pakistan would never dare to use nukes when most of their test launches of nuclear-capable missiles end up falling within their own territory. 2409:40C1:2F:1DBC:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We know that Marco Rubio called General Asim Munir around 4 am on Saturday, right around the time when he (or they) decided to call a meeting of the National Command Authority that is responsible for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It was reported by Associated Press at 5:49 PKT9:31 PKT.Associated Press, [https://web.archive.org/web/20250510043832/https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/pakistan-reports-indian-missile-attacks-3-air-bases-rcna205988 Pakistan says retaliation is underway after India fired missiles at 3 air bases], NBC News, 10 May 2025. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::By 8:50 PKT, it was cancelled.Namita Singh, [https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-pakistan-military-strike-pahalgam-b2748459.html Ceasefire reached after India and Pakistan trade missile strikes on air bases], Independent, 10 May 2025. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hmmm.. Interesting! 2409:40C1:48:A85F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: Correction: The actual time the cancellation was announced was 10:30 am.{{cite news |first1=Saeed |last1=Shah |first2=Asif |last2=Shahzad |first3=Shivam |last3=Patel |first4=Gibran Naiyyer |last4=Peshimam |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ |title=How India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink with US-brokered ceasefire |newspaper=Reuters |date=14 May 2025}} -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do any RS support the claim the only reason Pakistan did not use nukes was American pressure? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{talkquote|As nuclear war became a real possibility, Trump tasked Marco Rubio and JD Vance to contact the feuding countries.{{cite news |first1=Shah Meer |last1=Baloch |first2=Hannah |last2=Ellis-Petersen |title=From missiles to ceasefire: how India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink |newspaper=The Guardian |date=12 May 2025 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/12/how-india-and-pakistan-conflict-turned-from-brink-of-war-to-ceasefire-in-days}}}}

:: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I see no mention of him mentioning nuclear war, or this intervention having an impact, might just be me. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::You are asking for too much when you ask for the "only reason". The nuclear signalling is a cat-and-mouse game. The signal was sent loud and clear this time around, even though some experts refuse to see it or deny that it was ever sent. But it is also true that the US is over-eager to receive the signal, perhaps even before it gets sent, and rightly so in my opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No I am asking for a source that says this is why Pakistan did not use nukes due to American pressure. This is a serious allegation; it needs a serious source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::From the same source, The Guardian UK, from which Kautilya3 quoted, I also see this:

::::{{talkquote|But by late Friday night, as both sides escalated the conflict, it was made clear to the Trump administration that leaving the two nuclear armed countries to their own devices posed a danger not just to the region but to the world – and that the only third party mediator acceptable to both sides was the US, as it has historically been over decades. In particular, the US began to fear the escalation towards a nuclear threat was becoming a very real possibility. . . .Trump had tasked Rubio with talking down the Pakistan side, while Vance was the one dealing directly with India and its prime minister, Narendra Modi. Rubio made repeated calls not only to Munir, the army chief, but also Pakistan’s national security adviser, Asim Malik, and Sharif. According to officials, the message from Rubio was simple: this needs to stop.. . . “We welcomed the US intervention,” said one Pakistan official. “We don’t want war but if it is imposed upon us, then we have no choice to respond with aggression, as we did.” . . . .By 2.30pm on Saturday, the heads of both Pakistan and India’s military operations spoke on the phone for the first time since hostilities broke out.{{cite news |first1=Shah Meer |last1=Baloch |first2=Hannah |last2=Ellis-Petersen |title=From missiles to ceasefire: how India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink |newspaper=The Guardian |date=12 May 2025 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/12/how-india-and-pakistan-conflict-turned-from-brink-of-war-to-ceasefire-in-days}}}}

::::This seems to establish that Pakistan did not use nuclear weapons due to American pressure. Rubio is the Trump administration's Secretary of State. He was assigned by Trump to work with Pakistan whereas Vance was with India. It would be remiss not to include some mention of this in the article, especially given that there are no other serious sources cited, stating alternativ reasons why Pakistan did not use nuclear weapons.--FeralOink (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: I don't claim that calling a meeting of the National Command Authority automatically means that nuclear weapons would be "used". But that is one step along the ladder. Perhaps it was just signalling. Since it was publicly announced on state-owned media, it was meant to be heard in all capitals around the world, including India. US intervention definitely played a role in stepping back from it.

::::: I also don't see any indication of either India or Pakistan having had any formula for de-escalation. India had only a formula for escalation, "that any Pakistani escalation would be met by an even more forceful response".{{cite news |first1=Saeed |last1=Shah |first2=Asif |last2=Shahzad |first3=Shivam |last3=Patel |first4=Gibran Naiyyer |last4=Peshimam |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-india-pakistan-pulled-back-brink-with-us-brokered-ceasefire-2025-05-13/ |title=How India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink with US-brokered ceasefire |newspaper=Reuters |date=14 May 2025}} Pakistan was intent on matching anything India did. So I don't think a ceasefire could have been achieved without US intervention. Multiple sources have said so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes! in 10th May, 2025 at 8:00 AM(GMT+5:30), Reuters reported it{{cite news |title=Pakistan PM calls meeting of body that oversees nuclear arsenal, says Pakistan military |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-pm-calls-meeting-body-that-oversees-nuclear-arsenal-says-pakistan-2025-05-10/ |access-date=10 May 2025 |agency=Reuters}} - {{talkquote|Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has called a meeting of the National Command Authority on Saturday, the military said, after Islamabad launched a military operation against India and targeted multiple bases.
The authority is the top body of civilian and military officials that takes security decisions including those related to the country's nuclear arsenal.}} While in 11th May 2025, BBC reported that{{cite news |title=How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn617xv4no |access-date=11 May 2025 |agency=BBC}} - {{talkquote|Experts in Pakistan say as the escalation cycle deepened, Pakistan sent "dual signals", retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting - a clear reminder of the nuclear overhang.
The NCA controls and takes operational decisions regarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
This was around the time US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stepped in.
"The US was indispensable. This outcome would not have occurred without Secretary Rubio's efforts," Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the BBC.
What also helped was Washington's deepening ties with Delhi.}} As, {{tq|Trump had tasked Rubio with talking down the Pakistan side and According to officials. The message from Rubio was simple: this needs to stop...}}. So, it definitely seems that Pakistan did not use nuclear weapons due to American pressure. And those RS contents should be added to the Ceasefire section. King Ayan Das (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

This talk page subheading is: "Trump did sod all". The OED defines "sod all" /ˌsäd ˈôl/ as

"vulgar slang•British
absolutely nothing."

Currently, we have two sets of sections: first, the Timeline, and then another set that includes Ceasefire, Aerial Skirmishes, Casualties, and Impact. Most of the content in the Aerial Skirmishes and Casualties sections either repeats information from the Timeline or states facts that contradict the Timeline section. Why do we need these two separate sets of sections? Why can't the Timeline section cover everything? I believe we should merge these sections by either expanding the Timeline section or removing the Timeline and date-named sections altogether, and instead create new top-level sections named after events. For reference, there is no Timeline section in 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

: I think it was intended that the timeline section would have brief summaries of the events, and the significant details would be included in detail sections. That is still a good model to follow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this banner an indirect way to exclude Indian and Pakistani sources from this article? Previous efforts have not been successful, and I will oppose any such measures. I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood the meaning of the banner. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, it's to make sure readers know we are using sources with a clear COI. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The Ceasefire section has been badly munged after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&oldid=1296109221#Ceasefire 17 June]. I have reverted it back for now while we discuss the objections to its content.

• The ceasefire section is morally part of the timeline. Its events are mixed in with the 10 May section, and it was originally part of the 10 May section before I pulled it out because that section had gotten too long.
• There was inserted a bogus claim that Trump announced ceasefire around noon IST, citing Al Jazeera livefeed which was published at noon GMT (5 pm PKT/5:30 pm IST). By then the ceasefire was already in effect, theoretically, even though the Pakistani attacks continued till at least 9 pm IST.

I will look into the other issues when I get time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1296540591 Munging edits like this] are not policy-based. They are editor's opinions going against the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Kautilya3}} FWIW, I will expand on the explanation of my edits to the section here. First was the IST/PKT fixing (addition where relevant and removal of OL, the timeline also needs this wherever timestamps are given). Another edit simply expanded on Misri's statement to the parliamentary panel.

::I don't find the Jaishankar quote particularly relevant for the section:

::{{talk quote|Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar said in Europe that India fired back in self-defence and, once Pakistan relented, "we were able to stop firing".}}

::It adds nothing of value for the ceasefire or the timeline. The same goes for the recently added:

::{{talk quote|Pakistan's military spokesperson said that it was India which first requested a ceasefire, and that Pakistan responded only after completing its own retaliatory campaign.}}

::This is an older in-conflict statement from 10 May itself referring to an apparent ceasefire by India on 7 May! The [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2545242/dg-ispr-holds-press-briefing-on-operation-bunyan-un-marsoos-launched-against-indian-aggression ET source] says this:

::{{talk quote|"On the night of May 6 and 7, after those dastardly and cowardly attacks were made, Indians requested [a ceasefire] and Pakistan gave a very clear response—that we will communicate back only after we have given the response that this act deserves,” he added. According to Lt Gen Chaudhry, it was only after Pakistan had executed its retaliatory campaign under 'Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos' that Islamabad responded to Indian overtures. “So on May 10, after the response and retribution […] and on the request and intervention of international interlocutors, we responded to the already made request of the Indians.”}}

::I replaced this with a detailed timeline provided by the Pakistani MoFA itself a few days ago [also note how the statement by Chaudhry doesn't actually include ceasefire]. We are better-off providing claims by either side than listing their rhetoric. Gotitbro (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The theory that the Pakistani DGMO returned Indian DGMO's 7 May call on 10 May is known. There is nothing wrong with it. If we want to cover 7 May exchange, we need to cover what both the sides say about it. Note that the ET source has added "[a ceasefire]" in brackets, indicating that it is its own interpretation. It doesn't look like even the DG-ISPR did not claim that India "requested a ceasefire" on 7 May. What exactly did it request? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::PM Shehbaz Sharif said that after fajr prayers (before sunrise), he went for a swim taking his phone along. He said that General Munir called him saying that they had given a "big thappad" and "now we are being requested for a ceasefire". The PM interpreted the request as coming from India, but he didn't say that Munir said that himself. It is likely that ceasefire request came from Marco Rubio.

:::JD Vance called Modi the previous evening, and Modi apparently made it clear that India would retaliate if fired upon. By the time of the fajr prayers, India retaliated and Pakistan re-retaliated. At least one source mentions that India retaliated again after this, even though the timeline of 10 May is not quite clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kautilya3 I support restoring the following content originally added by @Gotitbro: {{tq|Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said that it did not ask for or initiate the ceasefire and that on May 10, around 8:15 am PST, Rubio had called Dar saying India was ready for a ceasefire if Pakistan was also willing. Dar confirmed Pakistan’s acceptance to Rubio and also to Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal, around 9:00 am PST, with the Foreign Ministry saying that the latter had relayed a similar message from India.}} Can we consider this a third opinion and restore the content? As for the statements by Jaishankar and the Pakistani military spokesperson, we should either keep both or remove both. I'm in favour of keeping both, but if Gotitbro disagrees, then let's remove the Jaishankar statement as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The old text nowhere said that anybody "requested" a ceasefire. So I don't understand where this is coming from.

::::Ceasefire is generally offered when one side says, we are happy to stop firing if you do the same. India had been saying that from 7 May. On 10 May, Pakistan reciprocated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kautilya3 {{tq|The old text nowhere said that anybody "requested" a ceasefire.}} Not sure which old text you are referring to. The text I am asking to be restored was added by Gotitbro as a new addition—it did not replace any old content. I am in favour of including that as well. What is your objection to it? It was supported by two sources—The Express Tribune and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—and it presents the Pakistani account of how the ceasefire came into play. There is already a paragraph detailing the Indian account of events, which was [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1296109221&oldid=1296080098 added by you on 17 June]. It was never discussed and had no consensus whatsoever. If we can include that, then why can't we include the Pakistani claim? This Indian claim, which was added by you on 17 June, is already in the article: {{tq| Misri said, to India's parliamentary panel on foreign affairs, that Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Kashif Abdullah attempted to contact his Indian counterpart Rajiv Ghai at 9:15 am IST on 10 May. Another message was sent through diplomatic channels shortly after. In the interim, as reported by journalist Shishir Gupta, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed the Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar at 11:30 am IST of Pakistan's willingness to agree to a ceasefire. A DGMO-level conversation took place at 1:15 pm IST, followed by another at 3:30 pm, during which a formal understanding was reached.[44][231][232] Jaishankar said in Europe that India fired back in self-defence and, once Pakistan relented, "we were able to stop firing".}} I am asking whether we can add the following Pakistani claim: {{tq| Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said that it did not ask for or initiate the ceasefire and that on May 10, around 8:15 am PST, Rubio had called Dar saying India was ready for a ceasefire if Pakistan was also willing. Dar confirmed Pakistan’s acceptance to Rubio and also to Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal, around 9:00 am PST, with the Foreign Ministry saying that the latter had relayed a similar message from India.[234][235]}} And if not, what is your objection to adding the Pakistani claim, and what is your reasoning for keeping the paragraph detailing the Indian claim? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is no informational value to what has been added. What Pakistan "did not ask" is not information. Regarding Rubio's calls, it has been covered aleady sourced to third-party sources. The key information was stated by The Guardian as a "fragile ceasefire" having been achieved by midday. Until that point, as far as we know, strikes continued.

::::::The Indian foreign ministry's information was included by Clary because it shows the key part of the timeline regarding the DGMO-level talks. Apparently that was the agreed protocol. Indian DGMO had called already on 7 May and the ball was in Pakistan's court to reciprocate.

::::::I am not looking to balance the space between the two foreign ministries. That is not a goal of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Kautilya3 The paragraph you added consists solely of claims made by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. If we cannot include the Pakistani Foreign Ministry’s claim, which differs from that of the Indian side, then why should we include the Indian Foreign Ministry’s claim? Clary is a self-published source and attributes this information to the Indian Foreign Ministry. {{tq|I am not looking to balance the space between the two foreign ministries. That is not a goal of Wikipedia.}} You might not be, but the goal of Wikipedia is not to push a point of view either. The paragraph you added uses highly non-neutral language and needs to be toned down, as Wikipedia is not a spokesperson for the Indian government. Per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, we should include differing perspectives when available. That being said, this paragraph was added by you very recently on 17 June, and I am going to go ahead and remove it until we reach consensus here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Here is the version that was revised by me and subsequently by Gotitbro. Let me know if you agree with it — it uses neutral wording and maintains proper balance.

:::::::{{talk quote|Misri said, to India's parliamentary panel on foreign affairs, that Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Kashif Abdullah attempted to contact his Indian counterpart Rajiv Ghai at 9:15 am IST on 10 May. Another message was sent through diplomatic channels shortly after. In the interim, as reported by journalist Shishir Gupta, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed the Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar at 11:30 am IST of Pakistan's willingness to agree to a ceasefire. A DGMO-level conversation took place at 1:15 pm IST, followed by another at 3:30 pm, during which a formal understanding was reached.[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/call-for-pause-in-indo-pakistan-hostilities-was-bilateral-no-trump-role-foreign-secretary-vikram-misri-to-parliamentary-committee/articleshow/121278433.cms Call for pause in Indo-Pakistan hostilities was bilateral, no Trump role: Foreign secretary Vikram Misri to parliamentary committee], The Times of India, 21 May 2025.Shishir Gupta, [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-was-ready-for-round-ii-pak-begged-us-for-intervention-after-operation-sindoor-101747540885978.html View: India was ready for round II, Pakistan begged US for intervention on May 10], Hindustan Times, 18 May 2025.}}

:::::::{{talk quote|Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said that it did not ask for or initiate the ceasefire and that on May 10, around 8:15 am PST, Rubio had called Dar saying India was ready for a ceasefire if Pakistan was also willing. Dar confirmed Pakistan’s acceptance to Rubio and also to Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal, around 9:00 am PST, with the Foreign Ministry saying that the latter had relayed a similar message from India.{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2025-06-21 |title=Indian media claims about ceasefire request rejected |url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/2551979/indian-media-claims-about-ceasefire-request-rejected |access-date=2025-06-23 |website=The Express Tribune |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=20 June 2025 |title=Statement by the Spokesperson Regarding Claims in Indian Media That Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, Said that Pakistan Requested a Ceasefire |url=https://mofa.gov.pk/press-releases/statement-by-the-spokesperson-regarding-claims-in-indian-media-that-deputy-prime-ministerforeign-minister-said-that-pakistan-requested-a-ceasefire |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan |quote=The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that Pakistan did not initiate or ask anyone for a ceasefire but agreed to it when around 0815 am on 10th May 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the DPM/FM, Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar, and informed that India is ready to ceasefire if Pakistan is willing. The DPM/FM confirmed Pakistan’s acceptance and later around 9 am Saudi FM Prince Faisal also called DPM/FM and informed the same about India and sought same confirmation which Secretary of State Marco Rubio had sought earier.}}}}

:::::::{{reflist-talk}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{U|SheriffIsInTown}}, you deleted this paragraph from the ceasefire section with the edit summary: {{tq|This was added recently and has no consensus plus uses highly one sided POV language. I have noted my objections at talk.}}

{{talkquote|According to the information given to India's parliamentary panel on foreign affairs, Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) attempted to make contact with his Indian counterpart at 9:15 am IST on 10 May. Another message was sent through diplomatic channels at around noon. In the interim, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Indian foreign minister at 11:30 am and indicated Pakistan's willingness to agree to a ceasefire. A conversation between the two DGMO's took place at 1:15 pm IST in which Pakistan indicated its willingness to cease hostilities. Another conversation followed at 3:30 pm, at which an understanding was reached between the two sides.{{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/}}[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/call-for-pause-in-indo-pakistan-hostilities-was-bilateral-no-trump-role-foreign-secretary-vikram-misri-to-parliamentary-committee/articleshow/121278433.cms Call for pause in Indo-Pakistan hostilities was bilateral, no Trump role: Foreign secretary Vikram Misri to parliamentary committee], The Times of India, 21 May 2025.Shishir Gupta, [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-was-ready-for-round-ii-pak-begged-us-for-intervention-after-operation-sindoor-101747540885978.html View: India was ready for round II, Pakistan begged US for intervention on May 10], Hindustan Times, 18 May 2025. Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar said in Europe that India fired back in self-defence and, once Pakistan relented, "we were able to stop firing".[https://indianexpress.com/article/india/astonished-jaishankar-rejects-nuclear-war-india-pakistan-10029882/ ‘Astonished by the question’: Jaishankar rejects nuclear war fears over India-Pak clash], The Indian Express, 26 May 2025.{{reftalk}}

}}

I am hard put to understand what is "highly one sided POV language" here. It is all factual statements, and except for the last sentence, everything else is taken from Clary. While you have claimed that Clary's write-up is a "working paper" and hence perhaps tentative, you are now calling it "POV language". So you need to explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That phrase comes from The Guardian. I struggled for a while about which timezone it was referring to, and decided that it was local time, based on the context. The context said 8 hours of negotiations starting at 4 am PKT. Midday PKT is 2 am EDT, and Marco Rubio probably went to bed after that, after extracting promises from both India and Pakistan that they won't fire. When Trump woke up the next morning, he probably noticed that the ceasefire had come into effect but nobody announced it. So he announced it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 In my opinion, the term "fragile" would be considered a WP:WEASEL term and therefore requires attribution. The ceasefire is still holding, so it cannot be described as fragile, even if the source uses that term. Let's resolve the issues in small increments so we can move forward. With that in mind, let's first discuss whether "fragile" should be kept or removed; we can then address the question of how to structure the content, as the current order is certainly not the most logical or chronological. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::It was "fragile" at that time, midday on 10 May, before the two sides talked and reached an understanding. That does not mean that it is still fragile. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::It is "fragile" because if you have read the statements by Indian officials and military leaders, "Operation Sindoor is still ongoing and thus ceasefire is only a temporary halt in fighting",we shouldn't remove that word for now. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 India–Pakistan conflict|answered=yes}}

"A rise in online hate speech on social media described as misogynistic, sexist, and promoting gender-related violence against women also saw a surge in both countries during the conflict.[320][321]"

Source 321 has no relation to the sentence. Overall, this sentence does not seem to comply with the five pillars, for example neutrality. It is not up to standard.

The single remaining source 320 is not strong or scientific enough to warrant such a statement as "fact". It's also not relevant to the article, or of questionable notability. I can't suggest a change other than removal. PedroTheHamster (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I understand your point but neutrality is already balanced as one side/or something in particular is not discussed. Other than that, it is a related event as part of the impact/aftermath and is not OR. It is discussing a mass reaction event and not some statement/cause-related fact. Other sources might be there and one RS is enough if it discusses it well. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 12:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:The unrelated BBC ref about false media reporting was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1292872577 here]. I have removed it. Your assertion this violates WP:NEUTRAL has no basis, we have an extensive report post-conflict by the prominent Digital Rights Foundation which states and documents exactly what we have added. Gotitbro (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)