Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 8#Terror base

{{hat|That's enough of that. This is not the place for this discussion, and Truthprevails999 has been indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

@Ecrusized removed the satellite imagery on the strikes on Pakistani terrorist camps given by the Indian armed forces in the press brief with before and after strike time stamped images from satellite and drones. He removed it without consensus in order to spread a one sided narrative. If Pakistan doesn't have satellite imagery, it doesn't mean Indias should be removed citing propoganda.

Secondly he also added a table citing target of missile strikes in Op. BAM with a thenews.com.pk site which is a biased pakistani source. Unlike the Indian strikes which had satellite imagery, the pakistani strikes didnt have any such proof, and they were profuted by Indian armed forces brief while giving time stamped images and calling out the Pakistani lie. Also the table is so irrelevant it has mentioned Gujarat as the place of strike, its a State for gods sake with 200,000 km square area, there isnt any exact location given by the pakistani side to where it hit them. So such content should be kept in Pakistani claims and not be kept in a standalone table citing pakistani news sources unless we get proofs from a neutral agency or satellite images confirmation.

So i propose on reverting the Indian Satellite images as given by the Indian Armed Forces.

And the Op. BAM table should be removed unless we get a neutral source proving that these sites have been hit via satellite imagery as it is with the Indias case on Op. Sindoor, we cant site a pakistani paper there called thenews.pk Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is a Pakistani claim, so what’s wrong with including it? The OPT Sindoor table has also been added. Can you give reference for that table? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is given by Press Information Bureau by Govt of India, and is also verified by NYT and Washington Times with satellite imageery. While on the other hand the Pakistani claims have no neutral agencies to back it up and so they choose thenews.pk there which should be removed.

::Also why are the satellite imagery being removed without consensus. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Satellite imagery should not be removed without consensus. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It has already been removed by @Ecrusized without consensus in order to spin off a one sided narrative and propoganda Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can you please WP:FOC and stop personalizing this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you give me NYT and Washington Times links in which they verified it with satellite imagery. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Include those references in the table for clarification. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Remove thenews.com.pk firstly, unless a third party claims verifies. Tables are not a place to put claims, they can be done after satellite imagery proves so, as it is with the Indian case Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Provide the New York Times and Washington Times reference links in which THEY verified that those targets were hit by India during Operation Sindoor. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::look at the articles cited in 3rd party claims in Pakistani side, you will get the NYT and WP imagery Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:We can include both sides claims, they do not need verification, but we must also be clear, they are only claims. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Slatersteven the table heading in Op BAM doesn't state it like a claim. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also another table should be made on Indias Retailtory strikes on PAF Airbases if that's the case. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Still my question of removal of satellite imagery without consensus is un answered. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::revert it what else. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It was in fact answered in a thread above this, we should only include these if we make it clear these are only inDian claims. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Include in the existing table. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::no time frame of strikes were different, so a new table should be created Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It was the SAME Operation. How many tables will you create? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Those were maiden missile strikes, these are retaliatory missile strikes, so both are different as per the source Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Just make one table and remove the word maiden. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah exactly. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 @CapnJackSp

:@DataCrusade1999

:@Gotitbro

:@Withmoralcare

:Please look onto it and revert the satellite imagery Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I reverted. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Slatersteven any reason for you reverting the satellite imagery again. It's a Indian claim given by Armed foreces supported by satellite imagery and is even reported in NYT and Washington Post. I see no reason why it can be removed. Kindly re-add the satellite imagery as discussed by the consensus earlier last week here Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have said why above. Its a wp:npov violation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::but in that consensus an understanding was reached that it should be kept as part of Indian claims. So it was kept for more than a week, why it's sudden deletion now without re-consensus. On one hand you say both party claims can be put and on another hand you didn't follow it in this case citing wp:npov. This just doesn't make sense. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You should reinstate the old version, these images have been verified by NYT and The Washington Post. The section also saw the content addition of Pakistan's perspective [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291764145]. Feel free to remove it as it's not verified by any third party sources unlike the former. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, as claims, so rewrite it to not put India's claims in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Brought them on ANI [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ecrusized_again]. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Good initiative @Rightmostdoor6 Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::even the user @SheriffIsInTown is doing the same, it can be verified from the source history. Kindly look onto that as well Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::OK so the excessive tagging looks a little bit like canvassing in this context so maybe knock that off. Remember that Wikipedia has no deadline and people will get to it when they get to it. Looking over the edit history it appears the objection is that the images are non-neutral as they contain claims that certain locations are "terrorist camps" that are disputed by reliable sources. As such these images may not be WP:NPOV compliant since they are making an assertion, effectively in wiki-voice, for which reliable sources disagree. This actually sounds like legitimate grounds for exclusion to me. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah Alright. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Respectfully, they're asking to fulfill the edit request because non XC editors can't perform it, I don't know what canvassing has to do with this. We can discuss the inclusion and exclusion of this particular table here. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::They tagged several editors they expect to be sympathetic and said "please revert" - that is precisely canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Still way more obligable and a correct way as in we discuss here with facts and reach on a concensus, where as some xC editors just make changes and push thier one sided propagandist point of view and violate WP:POV without reaching a concensus. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm sorry what do you mean by "still way more obligable and a correct way?" That you believe these editors will feel obliged to agree with you is precisely the problem. It is not, in fact, the correct way to handle content disputes. Please don't waste people's time with nonsense and insults. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::the user @Ecrusized also added a pakistani local source in the Christine Fair section of the Analysis section, after a consensus was made weeks before to not use domestic sources of both countries citing biases. Guess what, its still there. How will you defend him now for violating WP:POV. Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I did not add such a source "{{re|Truthprevails999}}" Ecrusized (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::# You have not provided a diff so I don't know what edit you are talking about. I cannot adjudicate the policy compliance of an edit I have not seen.

:::::::::::::# This is off-topic for the discussion of the deletion of the satellite images.

:::::::::::::# This is not an appropriate venue for discussing behavioural issues.

:::::::::::::# This did not answer my question regarding what you meant with your prior comment. It is, as such, something of a non-sequitur. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::#:I regret getting myself involved in this article. This is the worst of Wikipedia I have seen in a long time. Constant POV pushing followed by unsubstantiated accusations, personal attacks and dozens of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1291793152 (incorrect)] noticeboard pages being opened. Ecrusized (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::#::Same. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have status-quo reverted [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291785378] to recent warring over this issue. Please discuss here before making any changes to the long standing contents. Cheers, Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

wp::ani, is where we discuss user conduct, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{atop|reason=Inasmuch as this proposes an actionable change to the article, it is redundant with the discusssion at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Regarding_Reuters_Rafale_fact_check:_It_was_not_shot_down _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Why is this article supporting pakistani claims which lack proof and not support ing indian claims which are proven. No indian aircraft was lost . Pak govt is known to lie to the world 2405:201:4001:419C:C95F:6E8B:1B01:A2B3 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just a reminder that Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy. Content must be based on what reliable, third-party sources say, not what one side or another claims without corroboration. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Indian loss of 3 aircraft is attributed to independent sources, not the Pakistani government on infobox. Orientls (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's why it's been included in "Per Pakistan". Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Discused in many threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is what reutar published, claiming Rafale down in the infobox of Third-party sources of Pakistan.

::One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was high confidence that Pakistan had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets

::Reutar claim of Rafale down is sourced from some anonymous US official who is having high confidence without any evidence.

::On the other hand Third party source in the infobox for Indian side is backed by analysis with evidence like satellite imagery.

::Yeah we are talikng about neutrality. Stravashosha (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|reason=Redundant with Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Regarding_Reuters_Rafale_fact_check:_It_was_not_shot_down _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

no proof of rafale shot down. there is only one CNN report which is an opinion and not an analysis. 2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you please stop making new sections? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|reason=Please see and consider participation at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#General_discussion_on_sources _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Al Jazeer is known for its hinduphobia and bias towards pakistan , still it is being used as a source. and also no aircraft has been lost 2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just a reminder that Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy. Content must be based on what reliable, third-party sources say, not what one side or another claims without corroboration. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:See threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|reason=Please see Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Terror_base _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt. Of Pakistan itself put out statutory notice that according to UNSC resolutions mentioned in the below notice, all financial resources should be freezed and travel should be put on hold on some key terrorists as per INTERPOL-UNSC notice. If you look into the very end of this article in the Individual section, the terrorist organization LET's address is provided as Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab, Pakistan. It is the same location where India carried out strikes. So this clearly proves that Muridke sight is not just alleged, but a real terror camp as per Interpol and UNSC notices (with approval by Syed Haider Shah, MoFA Pakistan. Now we can remove the terminology of alleged terror camp and put it as terror camp in case of Muridke and Bahawalpur (which is also identified as a terror camp by UN) sites, and change all the similar wordings used in the main article.

https://sro.mofa.gov.pk/sro-details/97 Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Being discussed (and how it failed wp:v) above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|reasonWP:NOTFORUM}}

:Wha?!? I'm very sure that was a masjid in both cities, where people come to pray, not plan attacks. Not every mosque is Al-Qaida, just like how not every mandir is a scam call HQ, and not every church is a McDonalds. See those hurtful untrue stereotypes that still seem true worldwide to some people? Stereotypes went mainstream against mosques during the attacks, and Wikipedia should not value stereotypes more than they value a penny. Also, the big topic for the main aim of the attacks definitely needs at least 2 sources that are 100% neutral before we can add the main part of the article into full validation. Shahshagoose (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, Masjid At-Taiba does not mean LeT camp. 'Taiba' means 'pure'; "Mosque of Purity" not = "omg Osama bin Laden let's bomb it" Shahshagoose (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Repeted violations of WP:NPA are done by you. This place is for discussions regarding this article and not for throwing personal off- topic comments. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Shahshagoose Not every place of worship was targeted and mentioned as Militant hideout on this article. Places mentioned in this article are particularity used (UN) / being used (according to India) for militant activities. If you remember correctly, the family of a well known man "Masood Azhar" was killed in these bombings. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have a credible source ? The Indian Top Gun (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@ShahshagooseYou need to back your claims with credible sources. The Indian Top Gun (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

{{abot}}

Hello,

Under India's "Casualties and losses" section. 1 rafale shot down and reuters reference dated 9th May has been provided. However after 4 days , reuters fact check unit has clarified that no Rafale was shot down. This should be removed from causalities and losses section of India.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/2024-indian-jet-crash-image-falsely-shared-pakistan-downed-indian-jet-may-2025-2025-05-13/#:~:text=DOWNED%20JET%20RUMOURS&text=On%20May%207%2C%20Reuters%20reported,as%20yet%20unconfirmed%20by%20India. 2409:40C0:20:575:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:This does not address the Americans' claim, but rather an online image. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:But another reason to remove all claims unless independently verfied. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::For now let's keep it as it is, you might have seen how messy it became in the Russia Ukraine war, where both countries were denying independent casualties and losses reports and there were just too many different independent reports with huge differences among them. I guess that's true reality of Modern day Conflicts, where every country wants to show their support to one or the other side by Publishing such reports hurriedly with missing facts and proofs. Even UN reports are different and are contradicting their own facts. Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I said the same thing there, lets just leave out any but actually confirmed casualties. Do we really need to know how many Drones were shot down? It really is just puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::All I am saying is that the reference used for raefal shot down, is reuters. A few days later reuters says it was not shot down. It makes thing look bad and contradictory 2409:40C0:101F:C55F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::REutar is a fake news factory. Recently, Reuters reported that the U.S. administration was considering new tariffs on European goods. The White House denied the claim, calling it as fake news. Reuters retracted the story 152.58.20.239 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Trump literally posted today that he's putting 50% tariffs on Europe June 1. Please don't spread misinformation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

India also shot down pakistan only awac with brahmos

This should be added. Australian war historian Tom Cooper says its victory for India. Military historian s, says India decimated Pakistani bases.

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases/ar-AA1ECG6R

https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12 157.51.224.227 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. This should be added as a claim by third party. Here I see opinion of an American person Brandon J. Weichert is added. So this should also be added. Samsam111 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::This isn't a third party claim, but an analysis and belongs in the analysis section if added. Prober90 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::we can add this to analysis section as already there are a few comments on the analysis made for each side by analysts etc. It should have more views. Iamgood22 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. If he is indeed a reputable historian and analyst, his words do carry weight. Withmoralcare (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Why was his analysis removed from the analysis section ? Iamgood22 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps because there wasn't a non-Indian source? Although, CNN-News18 is arguably not a 100% Indian, and what he said is publicly available information on his blog. Withmoralcare (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::He is not a reputable source of information. I have added a topic specifically covering this. He earlier claimed that India successfully targeted Pakistan's nuclear sites, a claim that India, Pakistan, and the IAEA have refuted. He further claimed that two pilots have been captured by India and seemingly gave possible names taken from a meme that was circulating. The Indian government has not claimed the capture of any pilots. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Tom Cooper is not a credible source of information.

:::::First of all, Cooper has recently published an article in the Indian-owned publication, Economic Times, titled “Pakistan couldn't protect its own nuclear weapons': Top air warfare historian Tom Cooper calls India the clear winner” (https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-couldnt-protect-its-own-nuclear-weapons-top-air-warfare-historian-tom-cooper-calls-india-the-clear-winner/amp_articleshow/121161557.cms). India (https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/india-pakistan-nuclear-ceasefire-jammu-kashmir-b2749237.html), Pakistan, and the global nuclear watchdog, IAEA (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/iaea-no-radiation-leak-or-release-from-any-nuclear-facility-in-pakistan-10007208/lite/), has refuted that Pakistan’s nuclear facilities were targeted. Tom Cooper has an agenda that is clear as day and does not belong anywhere on this wikipedia page.

:::::Secondly, in his blogpost “Illusions and Reality” (https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross-b6c), he mentioned that India had captured two Pakistani pilots (Commander/Commodore Chahat Fateh Ali Khan and Captain Syed Qaim Ali Shah). This information is taken from a Pakistani meme that was making light of Indian claims. Chahat Fateh Ali Khan is a comedian/musician known for making satirical songs. Syed Qaim Ali Shah is a former Pakistani politician known for falling asleep. A defence analyst who cannot even bother to ascertain facts using OSINT or just a plain google search is an insult to the profession. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Exactly, I mentioned your discussion here, couldn’t believe if it was serious or some next-level satire. Absolutely hilarious JayFT047 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Read wp:partisan and wp:rsopinion I just wikify (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You are a pakistani person who thinks that if someone says his opinion against pakistn then he is not credible. There is nothing hilarious. Tom cooper is credible war historian from Austria. Samsam111 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::To be fair, one could say that he was only mentioning the claims that were made as opposed to endorsing them. He uses words like "supposedly", "reported", and "unconfirmed" while talking about the pilots.

::::::Also, he gave interviews after writing his own article. He did not directly publish anything on any Indian publication/outlet (as far as I know). Also, he did not say that there was any leakage. He was talking about "entrances". Withmoralcare (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Tom cooper is a credible person. So according to you anyone who says a pint against pakistan is not credible. Tom cooper is a reputable war historian. Samsam111 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yet this article mentions “downed Rafael jets” when it’s been unconfirmed as if it’s been confirmed. That guy is a credible source, but you don’t like that since he is not saying what you want to hear Ansurrotho12 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12 Sumitdhiman1 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/ Iamgood22 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I am seeing an edit war about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1290182286&oldid=1290180718 Australian expert] paragraph.

A reminder to @An Asphalt, @Mithilanchalputra7 and @Aviator Jr about how WP:BRD works - You made a bold edit to add the paragraph. Someone else objected and Reverted you. Now you both need to get to the talk page and discuss. Edit summaries are not discussions, and we should not be adding the paragraph to the article without discussion Soni (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have already explained it. In the Analysis section, every source used in it, is neutral and third-party. This addition was the only odd one. My objection is the sources that are quoting this "Australian expert" are not neutral by any means. I have no problem with it if you use a neutral source reporting it. An Asphalt (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Firstly, he is Austrian not Australian.

::Secondly, News18 is associated with CNN, which is a neutral or third party source.

::Thirdly, in support I am going to include the paragraph again, remove the other two sources (not the News18 article) and add his original document or the source.

::Now, I hope it will not be a problem... Thanks.

::Aviator Jr (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::News 18 is still very much Indian and not a reliable source and has been involved in creating hoaxes out of thin air. So, I still have a problem. An Asphalt (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How can adding original document as source have a problem? Aviator Jr (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Like I said, I have no problem with the "original document". I only have problem with the sources reporting it. EVERY other source is neutral. Not a single Pakistani or Indian source is used in Analysis section. Firstly, your addition is not a neutral source by any means and also not credible. Secondly, it throws off the neutrality of the entire section. An Asphalt (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Alright. It ends here then. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::He gave an exclusive interview to CNN news 18. So they are only going to report it. Iamgood22 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Tom Cooper gave an interview to CNN News 18. So, it will obviously only be reported by this news media not others. The interview is also real not a hoax. He is a renowned Austrian military historian. So, his analysis obviously should be re-added in analysis section. Snusho (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Being discussed in multiple threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sir Austrian war historian Tom cooper is not from India. He is an independent analyst who wrote his own article and gave his own interview in news channels. Here some pakistani persons calling him not credible is not acceptable. According to them if someone says anything against pakistan the he is not credible. This should e put in analysys. The anaysys section looks like very much biased towards pakistani cliams. Tom cooper clerly says Indian atack on pakistani airbases were successful and the response were not. Satellite images also shown this. Sattelite images shows bigger destruction on pakistanbi side. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html The analyss section is filled with articles supporting pakistani claims. Analysys from John Spencer a reputed US militray man and another analysys by Michael Rubin all removed from here. Michale Rubin John Spencer and Tom cooper are not Indians. they are independent persons who themselves claimed this in media interviews. AT least one or two opinion should be added here. Otherwise its a clear biassed report in analysys section. Tom cooper is a reputable war historian, Michael rubin is a ex pentagon employee and John spence is a US military personal

::https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/newshour/john-spencer-hails-indias-op-sindoor-as-massive-victory-says-mission-exceeded-all-objectives-video-151640898

::https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/operation-sindoor-exceeded-aims-india-achieved-a-massive-victory/articleshow/121153393.cms

::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXpH_GB7yo

::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5XQOgcephE

::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4smut7kGP8

::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmogfRZ44iQ Samsam111 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Someone is saying Cooper was removed just because he gave the interview in "godi media." I'm asking if he is EMPLOYED by godi media. If not, then how just giving an interview is a conflict of interest? If someone writes his opinion on X(twitter), then he becomes Republican as Elon Musk is republican? Nathularog (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Godi media is not a social media platform like X/Twitter, instead it is a pro-Modi government network of outlets. Orientls (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Tom Cooper has shared his view on X also, and also on his website

:::::As per Wikipedia - Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages or columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals.

::::::X/Twitter cannot be used as a source, same way Godi media also cannot be used as source for this information on this page. If Cooper published his analysis on an actual independent source then show it. Orientls (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::https://substack.com/@xxtomcooperxx/posts

:::::::Before you start yapping about substack

:::::::Here's the link to substack's wiki page Substack Rai achintya (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Substack is just yet another blog hosting service, thus it fails WP:RS. Orientls (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Only one failing here is your nation, I'll get the source one day or another 😂 and edit it myself Rai achintya (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::User:Swatjester or User:Rosguill, might need an admin here as well. (Should I be reporting it in AE or somewhere else instead?) Soni (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{Ping|Soni}} Won't need. He is already reported on WP:ANI. Orientls (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Is this how we see conflict of interest? Does the expert's mind and opinion swings like a pendulum from day to day according to which platform he is using? Nathularog (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Publisher is important. Godi media does not question the sources that are in line with their pro-Modi government agenda. Orientls (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Now 15 threads about one Austrian historian, do we really need to keep on having the same issues raised over and over again? This is a huge talk page and very difficult to find or follow threads.

All we need is one thread per topic, I therefore propose that from this point on, if a topic is being discussed, any subsequent threads on the same topic are closed and archived. Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with you a 100% Iamgood22 (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Slatersteven A lot of these threads are being created by newcomers who don't know how Wikipedia works and also do not know where to discuss. I have been merging a lot of these threads into single divisions (and archiving older ones), to reduce parallel discussions.

:I also believe experienced editors should just close the excess threads and link to the right ones. That's how the rest of Wikipedia often handles things, just close duplicated discussions. Soni (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:PP would stop it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:This thing has been removed again, details in Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#c-I just wikify-20250513134100-Prober90-20250513121200

:Why is this possible? Is it not possible to lockdown the page or request approvals if we continue to see random edits like this without discussion. I just wikify (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have seen here unnamed personals claims being added. then whats the problem adding a reputed world famous war historians comments.

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-expert-tom-cooper-on-indo-pak-conflict-says-islamabad-asked-for-ceasefire-2025-05-13-990090

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12

https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/no-surprise-pakistan-sounded-for-ceasefire-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-says-conflict-clear-cut-victory-for-india-article-13021560.html

https://neherald.com/national/clear-cut-victory-for-india-nuke-storage-targeting-tilted-outcome-says-combat-aviation-expert-tom-cooper

https://www.news18.com/india/austrian-analyst-india-pakistan-war-clear-cut-victory-bjp-reacts-operation-sindoor-updates-ws-l-9334070.html

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases/ar-AA1ECG6R

This should be added with reference. Clear cut victory for India says combat aviation expert Tom Cooper Samsam111 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYgZPITwfQ

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrkCrRk5Xg

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJK_r-1aXs

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2CoawU25CQ

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChaHj3iqAs

:https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php

:Videos are here. He said this thing in public news channels also. So why not add it. Here claims from unnamed persons are added then why not add this reputed person claims. This should be put in Analysis Samsam111 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::yes he gave an interview to cnn news 18. He was invited there to speak. It was live Iamgood22 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I agree with you. It should be re-added in the 'Analysis' section. Snusho (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this wiki page has a lot of Pakistanis. Ansurrotho12 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290206109] removed the analysis by Austrian historian Tom Cooper. With more references provided under Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#c-Samsam111-20250514021400-Austrian_expert_and_war_historian_Tom_Coopers_comments_should_be_added. the analysis should be added back.

There has been a lot of discussion on this under Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Austrian_historian_(Tom_Cooper) and I believe that the result is for the analysis to be present.{{TextDiff||Austrian military historian and combat aviation analyst Tom Cooper has termed India’s recent aerial offensive against Pakistan a “clear-cut victory,” stating that the lack of a Pakistani retaliatory capability and the targeting of strategic military sites—including nuclear weapons storage facilities—decisively tilted the outcome in India’s favour.

}}

Text in diff as per {{cite web |title='No surprise Pakistan sounded for ceasefire': Air war historian Tom Cooper says conflict 'clear-cut victory' for India |url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/no-surprise-pakistan-sounded-for-ceasefire-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-says-conflict-clear-cut-victory-for-india-article-13021560.html}}

{{cite web |date=11 May 2025 |title=Illusions and Realities of 'Cross-Border Incidents', Part 1 |url=https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross |website=Sarcastosaurus}} I just wikify

{{reftalk}}

: {{Not done}}. I just wikify Please stop creating new sections for the same discussion. Also, this is being discussed in the above section. First gain consensus in that discussion, then ask for an edit request. Just making an edit request while the discussion is ongoing is going to cause lots of back-and-forth edits again. Soni (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Who all should I gain consensus from? I believe that many editors believe that this section should be added.

:Mentioning @Prober90 @SlaterSteven @An Asphalt @Aviator Jr @Iamgood22 @RogerYg to help conclude on the edit, suggesting changes if any. I just wikify (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::So the way WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia usually works is... You suggest a change. People discuss it, sometimes add Support or Oppose to their comments. Then an experienced editor (ideally not WP:INVOLVED) reads the discussion and comes to a conclusion. That is consensus. It is not the same as having a vote, or many editors agreeing with you, arguments favoured by WP:RS and Wikipedia policy are way more important than just editors who think something should be done.

::So far I am not seeing very clear consensus in favour of the change. the discussion is so split and all over the place, and in part because it's not clear everyone agrees with exactly what should be re-added. So if I had to close all the threads above right now, it probably closes as "no consensus, come back in another few days".

::I think you are better off with closing all the other subthreads and starting a clearer subsection to gain that consensus. Ideally with what should be re-added + cite relevant reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. But if another experienced editor is already seeing consensus here, I do not object. I just do not see it, therefore requesting no edit requests until y'all resolve this. Soni (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{done}}. Revised [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1290421143&oldid=1290418844 wording] with newer sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:He seems to be a [https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php well-established] air warfare historian. I don't understand all this acrimony about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please consider including the original source [https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross] and [https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross-b6c] as well. Thanks! I just wikify (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi I just wikify, I agree that Tom Cooper analysis should be included, but had removed it several days back, because the references were very weak per WP:RS. Substack articles are not Reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also, News18 is a weak source. Sadly, top Indian sources like Indian Express and The Hindu are not reporting Tom Cooper, but we have some other good sources.

::I agree with Kautilya3 to add Tom Cooper analysis with good sources. I think someone else has again removed it.

::You may add it again with good sources as below:

::*NDTV "No Surprise Islamabad Sounded For Ceasefire": Expert On India-Pak Truce

::"After this series of blows, the writing was on the wall: pending the IAF exhausting its stocks of Brahmos and SCALP-EGs, Pakistan had nothing left to counter these," Tom Cooper wrote.

::https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-tom-cooper-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-ceasefire-expert-on-india-pak-truce-8396353

::* Economic Times 'Pakistan couldn't protect its own nuclear weapons': Top air warfare historian Tom Cooper calls India the clear winner

::https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-couldnt-protect-its-own-nuclear-weapons-top-air-warfare-historian-tom-cooper-calls-india-the-clear-winner/articleshow/121161557.cms

::* Business Today Military historian Tom Cooper: 'Fighting ended after India hit entrance of suspected nuclear site'

::https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/military-historian-tom-cooper-fighting-ended-after-india-hit-entrance-of-suspected-nuclear-site-476471-2025-05-15

::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Tom_Cooper_is_not_a_reliable_source) and can't believe if this is satire. I will repeat the point which I couldn't help contain my laugh.

In his blogpost “Illusions and Reality” (https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/illusions-and-realities-of-cross-b6c), he mentioned that India had captured two Pakistani pilots (Commander/Commodore "Chahat Fateh Ali Khan" and "Captain Syed Qaim Ali Shah"). This information is taken from a viral Pakistani [https://x.com/oyebajwey/status/1920569326593065458 meme] that was making light of Indian claims. [https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=6c4a24e0bcfeebc3&rls=en&sxsrf=AHTn8zof8jDUdDel3ggczmKtT1I-5PCcYQ:1747343809484&q=chahat+fateh+ali+khan&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_A1aq79iS84nP6J0j1icOz8ZqQVlCQOO_gN9G7sYM-kjgWG9ncpeqm-oHbDdHndDokeHvXYL4CT7Dz68gxDwpSdOqPnepvYHmRcsVcseRZXQ8TvtF3qzBXb-JC8qR7jqFEdre-kj5Y7cshVN1QcUbPT5r5C46tPk2kbl6sV6ONYmP12HpRxeMAalYCtjgbLM822W-QtTkqxcYZN9ooycxXHgGIUhqDOfOV8JJLjj5yT5ORNzRE&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimjsL4sqaNAxUmVUEAHV7qI-gQ0pQJegQIExAB&biw=1450&bih=763&dpr=2 Chahat Fateh Ali Khan] is a comedian/musician known for making satirical songs. Syed Qaim Ali Shah is a former Pakistani politician known for falling asleep. A "defence analyst" who cannot even bother to ascertain facts using OSINT or just a plain google search raises serious concerns about the reliability of their analysis.

If anyone is not familiar with this meme just [https://www.google.com/search?q=Syed+Qaim+Ali+Shah+Chahat+Fateh+Ali+Khan&client=safari&sca_esv=6c4a24e0bcfeebc3&rls=en&udm=2&biw=1450&bih=763&sxsrf=AHTn8zo2XLRlUlKW3RzlPV7mwOzxJLKMew%3A1747343563815&ei=y1gmaIvKMarOhbIPtoWGoA4&ved=0ahUKEwjL26-DsqaNAxUqZ0EAHbaCAeQQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Syed+Qaim+Ali+Shah+Chahat+Fateh+Ali+Khan&gs_lp=EgNpbWciKFN5ZWQgUWFpbSBBbGkgU2hhaCBDaGFoYXQgRmF0ZWggQWxpIEtoYW5I0gFQAFgAcAF4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAJgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAHALIHALgHAA&sclient=img search it up], but many Pakistani and even Indian editors most likely know it

JayFT047 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Consider reading on WP:PARTISAN and WP:RSOPINION I just wikify (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:This article is missing the diplomatic support given to Pakistan by Turkey and Azerbaijan. It added israeli statement but why not Turkey's and Azerbaijan's. 103.169.99.179 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Propaganda speaks :) neutrality is a myth :) I just wikify (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: Personal Substack posts are not Reliable sources per WP:RS. Information & claims on personal Substack pages or personal social media posts should neither be used to add content on Wikipedia, nor for removing content from Wikipedia.

:Many journalists from CNN and AlJazeera also have ridiculous claims on their personal social media, such as capturing of Indian pilots by Pakistan in recent conflict.

:We should stop wasting editor's time on Wikipedia, in discussing personal substack or social media post claims.

:If a Reliable WP:RS sources reports it, then it can be included on Wikipedia per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am not sure if you have really read WP:RS. Under WP:RSSELF it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" I just wikify (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To best of my knowledge as Wiki editor, WP:RSSELF is rarely used becasue it will be very difficult to gain consensus on such self published content. My guess is 99% of such self-published sources will get rejected on Wikipedia RfC. It's best to go with WP:RS sources, in my humble view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This source should be removed from the "Analysis" section because the publisher is not independent from the Indian government. See Godi media. Orientls (talk)

: Again, if a Reliable sources reports it, then it can be included on Wikipedia per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{EPER|answered=yes}}

We have seen more than two or three cases of this particular analysis being removed and added back again. There has been a full discussion but it feels like people want to ignore the discussion and just do whatever they want to do. Can this article somehow be restricted more than how it stands right now? Or should we start banning users or something?

I request for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&oldid=1290695924 to be reverted.

--I just wikify (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It cannot be restored in that form. See the discussion throughout this talk page. It tells why the articles from Indian media cannot be treated as third party sources. We will need independent sources if this "analysis" is really important enough for inclusion. Orientls (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Assuming good faith, I will just mention WP:RSSELF here, which should be self explanatory. I just wikify (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::In that case we should have a consensus before deleting information. I just wikify (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}}At this point, given that this is a relatively new article that has never had a stable state since its creation, WP:ONUS is on editors wishing to include Tom Cooper's analysis to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of its inclusion. Reviewing the above sections, it is clear that such a consensus does not exist at this time and that further discussion is needed, possibly followed by an WP:RfC if this remains an impasse. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::That entire section honestly needs the same nuke. Somehow the Tom Cooper lines are getting the most heat (probably because it was the only omission among the rest) but discussion on at least half of the other analyses have been similarly split in opinion (See archives)

::In my opinion, we would be much better served by just drastically reducing the section and straight up removing all op-eds, unless the opinion is itself given weightage by other RS.

::There's too much back and forth, and I'm not convinced the op eds have met the standards expected from RS. Soni (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There could be some legitimate concerns here. For example, Mr Brandon Weichert's article seems to be a bit too confident about the Pakistani claim that they shot down five Indian fighter jets, even though various other neutral sources have not concurred with this assertion. Withmoralcare (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::XC editors are welcome to remove contested content pending consensus for its inclusion. If the section does end up getting removed or drastically shortened, it will likely be prudent to start a new section for discussion, rather than having this squirreled away under several subsections of Tom Cooper. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that there's a distinction between an expert and a historian. Tom Cooper is a historian. Nobody seriously contests this. He has written a prolific number of books, some of which are published through reputable publishing houses, that document combat aviation throughout global history. Tom Cooper is *not* an expert on aerial warfare, on the other hand. He has no academic or experiential background with it whatsoever -- it's simply an area of interest that he started writing on. This is an important distinction to make, because in assessing Cooper's credibility (in order to assess his reliability), we need to distinguish between historical analysis, and present-day or future-looking expert analysis. And the problem is, insofar as WP:RS is concerned, Cooper is only really citable as an instance of the former -- he has no reputation with regard to the latter. This is an important distinction to make because per WP:RS, there are numerous places where being an *expert* matters. For instance, {{tq|The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.}} Experts may publish self-published-sources and we'll still consider them reliable: {{tq| Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} It looks like the above discussions have resolved with Rosguill's interpretation of WP:ONUS excluding the Cooper content; but it's still an important point to call out as we're clearly going to be addressing this with other "analysis" that's going to be disputed by both sides. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't contest the deletion of his content because he has only written blogs, nothing published, and he has been interviewed one-on-one on several Indian TV channels, including the Barkha Dutt's Youtube channel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqwnr8vgnhg]. I have not seen him on multiple-participant discussions or panels. So I can't judge how his ideas would be received by other experts. The pubished newspaper write-ups are all based on the one-on-one interviews or his blog. So I would rather wait until some other experts validate his views.

:I don't find the expert vs historian distinction particularly central to the debate. He is assessing the oeverall impact of the conflict, not the details of the combat or the strikes. The way he described it on the Barkha Dutt interview, if I am able to get your queen in 5 or 6 moves, it doesn't make much difference if I lost some pieces along the way. So he is much more focused on the strategic aspect rather than combat details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, so by this logic, you should be able to delete or edit the fact that those “officials” that claim pakistans narrative are also unnamed and we do not know who they are or what their ranking is and the fact that their governments did not comment nor confirm pakistans claims? They aren’t any experts too. By the way, France has already called out Pakistans lies. Ansurrotho12 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, that is not what Swatjester is saying.

::It's a completely separate issue.

::"By the way, France has already called out Pakistans lies."

::Please source your claims before I continue this discussion. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/india-pakistan-tensions-austrian-military-historian-tom-cooper-says-its-clear-cut-victory-for-india-no-wonder-pakistan-asked-for-ceasefire-article-151632790

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-expert-tom-cooper-on-indo-pak-conflict-says-islamabad-asked-for-ceasefire-2025-05-13-990090

https://www.newsx.com/india/clear-cut-victory-for-india-air-war-historian-tom-cooper-on-india-pakistan-conflict-says-no-surprise-islamabad-sounded-for-a-ceasefire/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/clear-cut-indian-victory-iaf-hit-entrances-of-pak-n-weapons-site/articleshow/121147531.cms

https://www.cemaat.media/en/author/tom-cooper

Videos of he himself claiming that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXpH_GB7yo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5XQOgcephE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJK_r-1aXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2CoawU25CQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IppowYzk09M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYgZPITwfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9yyfPImPmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3ufuuGW_g

https://www.cemaat.media/en/author/tom-cooper

This should be added in Analysys section as many unnamed claims of unnamed personals are added here. This person is s reputable war historian from Austria. 157.51.212.29 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = NO PREJUDICE CLOSE

| result = Closing this RFC early since the question is (arguably) ill-posed, and the meager discussion and !votes that follow are difficult to parse. No prejudice against starting a fresh RFC on the topic after workshopping the question. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Should Austrian historian (Tom Cooper) be considered a credible source of information to added in this article? Neera landoora (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes
• No

:Bad RFC, its too broad a question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close this RfC. You will need a broader RfC outside this article for gaining consensus in favor of using Indian media sources for the conflicts where India is directly involved. Orientls (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes

he is a renowed war historian, he has written many books realted to wars in Iran, Libya, Ukrain, MIddle east etc

https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php

list of books

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat – 2003

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat – 2004

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat – 2004

African MiGs: MiGs and Sukhois in Service in Sub-Saharan Africa (Volume 1) – 2010

Wings Over Ogaden: The Ethiopian–Somali War, 1978–1979 – 2015

Libyan Air Wars Part 2: 1985–1986 – 2016

The Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980–1988 – 2002

Iraqi Fighters: 1953–2003 – Camouflage & Markings – 2008

Moscow's Game of Poker: Russian Military Intervention in Syria, 2015–2017 – 2018

War in Ukraine: Volume 6 – The Air War February–March 2022 – 2024

{{abot}}

{{Edit extended-protected}}

1. Under the "Casualties" section, within the "Third-party sources" subsection on the Pakistan side:

{{textdiff|Many defense systems damaged|NIL}}

2. Under the "Casualties" section, within the "Third-party sources" subsection on the India side:

Proposed addition:

{{textdiff||Four Indian Air Force bases—Udhampur, Bhuj, Pathankot, and Bathinda-damaged during Pakistani strikes reported by Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference.}}

Why it should be changed:

The current claim about Pakistan's defense systems being damaged is sourced from a New York Times article authored by an Indian journalist based in New Delhi. The claim is only briefly mentioned and lacks any cited source, which fails Wikipedia's verifiability standards. This should be removed.

There is documented international coverage that Pakistani strikes damaged four Indian air bases, with confirmation from Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference. Including this makes the article more balanced and based on multiple independent sources.

{{cite news |title=China's warplane combat debut over Kashmir riles tense geopolitics |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/17/china-j10-jet-pakistan-india-kashmir-combat/ |publisher=The Washington Post |date=May 17, 2025}}

{{cite news |title=India and Pakistan launch rival diplomatic efforts to spin Kashmir conflict |url=https://www.ft.com/content/b877229c-125b-4513-a4c6-1c387f9f6821 |publisher=Financial Times |date=May 22, 2025}}

{{cite news |title=Pakistan says it is committed to Kashmir ceasefire after India accuses it of 'violations' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/10/pakistan-says-three-air-bases-attacked-by-indian-missiles-live-updates |publisher=The Guardian |date=May 10, 2025}}

39.62.128.108 (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:4 airbases limitedly damaged already exists, it is supposed to be on the Indian claim section and not third party sources. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::It was reported by a third party source, thus it was meant to go for third party claims. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It was claimed by Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a press conference... - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Dont spread lies by misrepresenting facts. Firstly, Mujib Mashal is the South Asian bureau cheif of NYT, not a just another correspondent from Delhi (his nationality is Afghan not Indian).

::::Secondly, while there is proof via satellite images given by Indian armed forces of the destruction of PAF sites, it is also verified and published by international papers such as NYT and Washington Post via Maxar imagery. While on the other hand there is no proof to Indian sites limitedly damaged anywhere (neither given by PAF, or in international papers). So we cant add it there in the third party sources unless its verified. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you open the article by Mujib Mashal, and click on the article cited by him as a source for air defence systems being damaged, you will see that the wording in the article is the following:

:::::"Indian officials said they had responded forcefully, and claimed that they had targeted Pakistan’s air defense radars and systems at several locations"

:::::This is reporting INDIAN claims. 39.62.128.108 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Replace it with some other neutral source or remove it. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::They were verified by the NY Times, so they can be put up here in Third Party Claims Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Doesn't it say that Indian officials said...? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You don't understand, IP and PunjabiEditor69. Give a fair share of read to the [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/asia/india-pakistan-what-we-know.html?login=email&auth=login-email cited sources]. After The claim of NYT "It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore." The claim is backed by experts: {{tq|“A move like that is quite strident and would have concerned Pakistani forces, because in other contexts, taking out air defenses is a prelude to more serious action,” said Kim Heriot-Darragh, a strategic and defense analyst at the Australia India Institute. “You’d knock out defenses to open a corridor through which aircraft could fly and strike their actual target.”}}. Need to drop the stick. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Alright, fine — I think we can include this. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The words you've quoted:

:::::::"It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore."

:::::::There's hyperlink if you care to see. Clicking on that will lead you to another article, in which the words that corroborate the claim in the original article say the following, verbatim:

:::::::"India said it had responded by striking Pakistan’s air defense systems and radars close to the city of Lahore — the kind of blow that often causes a military conflict to intensify, analysts said."

:::::::INDIA SAID, being the keywords at play. Hence these are very much, Indian claims that are merely being reported by the NYT.

:::::::Additionally, you've quoted:

:::::::“A move like that is quite strident and would have concerned Pakistani forces, because in other contexts, taking out air defenses is a prelude to more serious action,” said Kim Heriot-Darragh, a strategic and defense analyst at the Australia India Institute. “You’d knock out defenses to open a corridor through which aircraft could fly and strike their actual target.”

:::::::Heriot-Darragh, if you have any sense about context clues, is saying that a move like THAT, referring to the possiblity of air defence systems having been destroyed, is a prelude to other actions.

:::::::This quote in no way, shape, or form confirms any air defence being destroyed.

:::::::The horse is very much up and kicking, Rightmostdoor6. You just seem uninterested. 39.62.128.108 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm well aware of the hyperlink to the different NYT story. But you first need to focus on the cited source (which supercedes and updates the former), which quotes two experts making specific remarks about the damaged military equipment in Pakistan—don't dismiss it as lacking context. Maybe the earlier story [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html] lacked corroborated opinions, but the one cited here clearly provides that. The experts aren't just making scattershot remarks—they're evidently confident about the damage caused by the Indian strikes. If you have any other high-quality source that contradicts the NYT, feel free to share it. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Can we just use any other source to avoid any confusion? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Slatersteven What is your opinion on this? Should we keep Many defense systems damaged or not? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I am unable to view the NTY, so can't comment on what it says, i will however, say that WE do not get to dismiss an RS< as long as we accept its an RS.So if the NYT says it, we can include it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You can use Wikipedia Library Pro Quest to access it. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Can I provide the article's text here? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Slatersteven - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Which is verified by the NYT report. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::True, so no changes should be made as its verified by New York Times. Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@IP guy, you seem to have misunderstood our WP:OR policies. If NYT evaluated a claim to be reliable enough to state without attribution, there is no issue with us doing the same. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

Also add that bhawalpur and Muridke site has been added to UN terror base list since long time and Pakistan defence minister accepted that Pakistan has actively supported terrorism for 3 decades 2409:4090:101D:E03:A1B4:E430:A13A:C251 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Look at https://sro.mofa.gov.pk/sro-details/97 where ministry of foreign affairs pakistan is verifying the same that these are UN terror bases. Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Quote? Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would guess that they're looking at the details in section {{tq|A. Individual}} where it identifies Abdul Rehman Makki as subject to sanctions in relation to affiliation with LeT (and further asserted connection to ISIL/AQ), and gives his address as {{tq|Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab Province, Pakistan}}. But using this to infer that bombed locations in Muridke were being used as {{tq|terror bases}} or that this is a UN designation is WP:SYNTH, in addition to questionable use of a 2-year old primary source for a value-laden label with significant broader political implications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I was assuming they were not breaching wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::look at this even Reuters article is telling that these are UN identified terror organizations and we got a proof of their addresses via Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan notice as per UNSC and Interpol. I don't find a reason why it violates the wp:or and wp:synth. Adding onto that the same site was bombed by India, ie Tayyiba Markaz in Muridke which is mentioned in the above notice by MoFA Pakistan. Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/who-are-pakistan-based-let-jem-groups-targeted-by-indian-strikes-2025-05-07/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Reuters said: "India says it struck Muridke's Markaz Taiba, a site about 25 km (16 miles) from the border, where the Mumbai attackers had been trained. The term Markaz means headquarters."

:::::::::S.R.O. 29(I)/2023 published by MoFA Pakistan mentions the address of Abdul Rehman Makki, deputy Amir/Chief of LASHKAR-E-TAYYIBA (LET) as: "Tayyiba Markaz, Muridke, Punjab Province, Pakistan."

:::::::::But, he was pronounced dead in 2024. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Linking my previous comments regarding the militant links of the sites, Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 6#Sky news reports in Muzaffarabad indian missile destroyed a mosque and school.

:{{talk quote|The sites targetted at Bahawalpur and Muridke may or may not be providing actual arms training to militants aka be terrorist training camp or jihadist camps. But they are definitely linked to the JeM and the LeT. This is confirmed by reports in local Pakistani media itself as can be seen [https://jang.com.pk/news/1471040 here] and [https://dailynaps.com.pk/indian-missile-attack-funerals-of-14-shohda-offered-in-bahawalpur-stadium/ here]. ... We should not mislead readers into thinking that these were random sites which had nothing to do with militant groups.}} Gotitbro (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed @Gotitbro Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The thing is that any context you provide must be neutral. There certainly is value to describing why India committed these particular acts. However what Wikipedia cannot do is suggest that India's description of those sites was correct absent neutral verification from reliable secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My reply was originally to a user who suggested (as have multiple here on this Talk page) that these were random mosques and madras which is not the case (as shown by Pakistani reports themselves). As I say in my reply above, India's decsription of these are terror camps may or may not be true but these are definitely linked to terror/militant groups banned in Pakistan itself. Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Proof of one of those sites is given by the Pakistani MoFA as provided in the thread above, citing that they are UNSC-INTERPOL dedicated terror camp with address matching as Indias claim. @Gotitbro is correct in mentioning it Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That failed wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Gotitbro there appear to have been problems with your citations claiming this has been linked to terror or militant groups banned by Pakistan. Can you please provide a reliable secondary source supporting these claims? Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Slater is talking about the initial MoFa link by another user above. I linked to original reporting from Pakistani newspapers themselves which clearly link these sites to militant groups, will quote what I said in my original reply:

:::::::::{{Talk quote|The connection of these sites to the militant groups/their leaders has been given above sourced from local Pakistani media itself. Linking again, see Daily Jang ([https://jang.com.pk/news/1471040]) for Muridke and LeT; see a local Bahawalpur newspaper about Bahawalpur and Masood Azhar. ([https://dailynaps.com.pk/indian-missile-attack-funerals-of-14-shohda-offered-in-bahawalpur-stadium/])}} Gotitbro (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::So where do these say these were terror bases (quotes please)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::These sources seem insufficient for your claim being honest. The second one doesn't mention the political character of the destroyed mosque at all. The first one implies it had a connection to jihadi ideologues but a single newspaper making a single link between a destroyed building and ideologues is a very tenuous connection. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm not sure about sources referring to Bhawalpur or Muridke sites having terror infrastructure but [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html NYT] confirms two infrastructure of these terror outfits being hit in strike must give a slight clue. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Od}} First a reply to Slater, see my original reply. I clearly say these may or may not be terrorist camps. What I am asserting is that these mosques/madras are clearly linked to militant groups.

Coming to Simon's assesment. My assertion is that these are connected to militant groups/their leaders, that these links appear in Pakistani newspapers themselves says something. I can bring academic sources which say as much (Bahawalpur and Muridke are well known JeM amd LeT hubs respectively, see their enwiki articles for the same) but my focus was on the current crisis and its coverage in Pakistani media itself. Quoting translation from Daily Jang (it does not simply imply a connection, it lays it out quite clearly and explicitly) [one of the most prominent Urdu newspapers in Pakistan shouldn't be discounted so easily]:

{{talk quote|"In response to the Pahalgam tragedy, India has been in the news ever since missiles were fired at the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Tayyiba, among other places, under "Operation Sindoor". ... It was customary to take a walk on the railway track in the morning or evening, which sometimes went as far as Nangal Sadan, where the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba headquarters is now. In fact, the current Tayyaba Center was built before my eyes. Among its architects, from Hafiz Saeed to Professor Zafar Iqbal, Mr. Amir Hamza, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Yahya Mujahid, I not only had a personal acquaintance with everyone, but also conducted detailed interviews with Hafiz. ... How did Hafiz Saeed Sahib become a jihadi after progressing from a lecturer in Islamic studies at the Engineering University?
... He got lost in this and asked me to join his organization. ... With great difficulty, I explained to him and thought for the future that I would never bring innocent minds here. I know how many young people who joined Hafiz Sahib’s army and instead of being a support for their elderly parents, became the last straw.}}

For the Bahawalpur report, I agree the connection is only implied in that the death of Masood Azhar's family is reported at the JeM mosque; but connections are not explicitly laid out. Older Pakistani reports say the same, but as I said my focus was on current coverage of the conflict in Pakistani media. Otherwise refs exist on the respective enwiki pages which verify these very connections and I can bring them here if need be. I am not looking to include this material in our article here but opposing claims (and attempts to introduce them in this article) that these are merely random civilian sites. Gotitbro (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:From another contemporary report from Nawa-i-waqt which lays the same ([https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/07-May-2025/1893005]):

:{{talk quote|Muridke is a town in Sheikhupura District of Punjab Province, Pakistan, about 40 kilometers north of Lahore. It should be noted that this town, located on the outskirts of Lahore, has also been in the news in the past due to the Jamaat-ud-Dawa center 'Dawat-ul-Irshad' [both LeT front organizations]. ... In the past, this place was the center of welfare activities of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its affiliates, for which education complexes and health centers were built, but after the organization was banned, the Pakistani government took over its management and started using it as a center for providing facilities to the public. ... Ahmedpur Sharqia is a historic town in the Bahawalpur district of Pakistan's Punjab province. It should be noted that the central headquarters of the banned organization Jaish-e-Mohammad is also located in Bahawalpur, and the Madrasa al-Sabir and Jamia Masjid Subhan are part of it. In a statement issued by Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar after the Indian operation, ten members of his family and four close associates were confirmed to have been killed ... }}

:And another one from Nai Baat ([https://www.naibaat.pk/09-May-2025/12496]):

:{{talk quote|Indian aircraft hit the Subhan Mosque in Ahmedpur Sharqia near Bahawalpur, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa headquarters mosque in Muridke ... }}

Gotitbro (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Are we missing something for more losses? [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/asia/india-pakistan-diplomacy-kashmir.html NYT] says: {{tq|there was evidence that India had managed to hit facilities related to two prominent terrorist outfits}}. I propose the inclusion of "Terror facilities of two outfits were hit" in the infobox. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, as per mentioned in the NYT article, it should be added in third party claims Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:yes, this must be added. Good point 2409:40C0:101F:C55F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Read the NY Times article, it seems we can add "Terror facilities of two outfits hit" DanBritton (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}}, although more sources would certainly be helpful.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top}}

In the analysis section, a Pakistani source, known as 'Express News', has been provided for the following portion:

"She acknowledged in her analysis that the Pakistan Air Force held an advantage over the Indian Air Force during the recent India-Pakistan aerial engagement. She further noted that although a ceasefire has been achieved, it should not be considered permanent or stable, as the Kashmir issue remains a volatile flashpoint that could lead to another conflict between the two countries."

Is this appropriate? Withmoralcare (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:It seems to be attributed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Understood. Thank you for the elucidation. Withmoralcare (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Any update on why this section is not removed yet and it is still citing an unreliable Express News source. @Slatersteven DanBritton (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::When did RSN say it was not a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Then can we open the floodgates for all Non-RSN'ed Indian Media reports on this conflict right?

:::::Also while scrolling above I saw The News International Thread were editors agreed that her thoughts on Aerial Battles should not be reported as it's not her expertise, as mentioned by her itself in one of the sources. DanBritton (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::We judge on a case by case basis, and read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:See above #The News International? above. Closing this repeat thread. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{edit extended-protected|2025 India–Pakistan conflict|answered=no}}

In Casualties and Losses Section under Third Party:

Please remove those 3 aircrafts down in India section as there is no satellite evidence or wreckage for the same. This should be based on the objective evidence and not on some article in media as this is not an analysis section.

Under Pakistan Losses (in third party): Please add that the terror camps(or alleged terror camps) were hit for which we have all the evidence in the form of videos ( at the time they were hit and after the hit videos) across mainstream electronic media, social media etc., Srik84 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:It has just become a useless loop of Some confidential sources saying and Media hovering over it without any research and publishing it. We should refrain from put it up here until some credible reports come from the Armed forces or the Manufacturer of the aircraft-Dassault Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That can be said about India's claim too. Personally, I would rather we removed all but confirmed casualties (and no, damaging buildings or bases are not casualties). Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is satellite evidence for damage to terror infrastructure and PAF airbases from Maxar. Please check the NY times article, which has posted those pics. Srik84 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::We also cite foreign news sources for the loss of 3 Indian aircraft. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly, if you look at Indian armed forces meet, they provided satellite images and drone footage with time stamped on the Op. Sindoor, and Nyt and Washington Post verified it via Maxar. But on the other hand Pakistani armed forces didn't give any single proof or a satellite imagery and just did Whataboutery Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have had my say, a firm remove all or none. Its time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::But even in foreign media there is no wreckage evidence or satellite evidence for the aircrafts down. But even the foreign media has showed satellite imagery for the damage done to PAF airbases and terror camps. Srik84 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::true @Srik84, ig why no one is mentioning that. They (Pak AF) need credible satellite images, which they don't currently and neither any independent international media has it published Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Let it be as it is for now. End of discussion Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I hope this section will be updated as there is evidence. Srik84 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::yes, hope so Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::IMO there is a need to modify the figure of "3", since that is not at all representative of the sources. Right now, Indian aircraft losses portion under third party claims is blatant SYNTH. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::True, there is no proof, leave alone a solid one. Just a infinite loop of because my classified source said so. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@CapnJackSpI still see 3 jets under losses for India under third party section. Can it be removed as there is no evidence. Srik84 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It is sourced, that is all the evidence we need for inclusion> Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is improperly sourced though, since it fails to cover "all significant viewpoints" required under NPOV.
Sourcing alone is also not enough - See WP:VNOTSUFF. There are Synth issues as well, using a combination of claims to derive the highest possible count. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We do include India's POV, just not in a place that is not about India's POV. Nor is there any Synth, as we have a source saying 3. So I will bow out with a no to removal. Assume it remains no until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree, I went through all the articles of Reuters, WP and found out there are irregularities in them with respect to the sources and considering the fact Reuters retracted their own article later makes it sound unreliable and shouldn't be included here. DanBritton (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/22/indias-wake-up-call-why-us-defense-reform-must-match-the-speed-of-modern-war/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3, can you please frame in and add the section 4 about Op. Sindoor from this article, we can use para 2, 3 and 7 which are relevant and use it under the Analysis section. Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why? Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I meant frame and add here, so we can reach a Consensus. Small Wars Journal is a reputed journal covering worldwide disclosure and wars. So is John Spenser, who heads the MWI and has been on platforms like CNN, MSNBC, BBC, FOX NEWS, ABC and Reuters. And Vincent Viola is the founder of Madison Policy Forum. So now we got a John Spenser article published on an Independent forum on this topic which was not the case earlier. So I don't think of any reason that it must be ignored Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See the talk page archive, Spencer has already been discussed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But this is a new article on a neutral platform, Small Wars Journal based in US, also has a co author in Vincent Viola with reputed work. Also that earlier discussion about John Spenser didn't reach any consensus, his article was denied as he gave it to Indian News sources and not International ones, but now it's there in International source too. I feel this should be looked upon @Slatersteven@Kautilya3@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Who is Vincent Viola, and is small wars an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Vincent Viola is the founder of Madison Policy Forum headquartered in New York City. They are highly reputed and a credible think tank based out on all things defense and national security. And Small Wars Journal is an RS, as it has credible and detailed analysis on all defense issues by a wide range of defense and policy experts. So it can be considered to be added in the Analysis section. @Kautilya3@Slatersteven@CapnJackSp Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think either The National Interest or Neue Zürcher Zeitung is an RS going strictly by the books.

:::::::Yet their analysis was used to mention that the aerial duel between both countries was as an "unambiguous victory" for Pakistan and Indian ops "turned into a disaster". Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Exactly, the so called defense analyst Brandon Weichert claimed 5 indian jets are downed by taking unambiguous Pakistani claims, he didn't even cross check it with a solid satellite proof via any international neutal agency and wrote a biased article which clearly is written for Chinese Military Complex paid by Beijing. He selectively only spoke on Aerial dual and not the whole conflict, because the Chinese air defense system wasn't worth it's money and failed to intercept Indian missiles which struck pakistan initially on the 9 terror targets and later on PAF air force bases. I wonder why such people's incomplete analysis are tolerated and the so called bi montly Magazines like National Intreast. Read Beijings Global Media Influence 2022 country report by freedomhouse.org and let the biased journalism unravel Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I read this article, This article can be added in the Analysis section considering the stature and expertise of both the authors. @Truthprevails999 @Cdr. Erwin Smith can you guys frame it for a draft. DanBritton (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 India–Pakistan conflict|answered=no}}

Please include citations from this article by Colin Clark in the analysis section

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/what-air-defense-lessons-can-be-learned-from-the-india-pakistan-conflict/

“India probably calculates that its strikes heightened the costs for Pakistan to remain a permissive environment for terrorist groups,” Heriot-Darragh wrote. “But I’m not sure those costs were enough to shape Islamabad’s strategic outlook. In the meantime, New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs. This is worrying given the stakes involved.

Pant also noted another aspect of the air war: that India’s air defense appears to have “performed remarkably well.” The core of that system is the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), a networked command and control system designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats.

“If you look at the kind of projectiles that were launched towards India, whether drones, whether missiles, whether other munitions,” Pants said, “it’s remarkable how little damage India suffered and how its air defenses managed to hold. So I think from India’s vantage point, the air defenses actually performed remarkably.”

Pant made the calculation that India has “shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps, before that was not would not have been clear to Pakistan. So,” he said, “I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signaling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create a new level of deterrence.” Srik84 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes @Srik84, it should be added in the Analysis section. Breaking Defense (based out of New York City) is a digital news leader on the strategy, politics and technology of global defense. Also Colin Clark is the Indo-Pacific bureau chief of Breaking Defense, who has a wide range of experience in analyzing several Air, Land and Naval Warfares across the Globe as seen on the Breaking Defense website. Truthprevails999 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Srik84@Kautilya3 please look onto it Truthprevails999 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is this an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes it is an independent RS as I mentioned above, and Colin Clark the author is the Indo-Pacific bureau chief of Breaking Defense with wide range of Defense articles as seen on the website. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So this article should be added in the Analysis section after reaching consensus, as it tick marks all the "to-haves" wrt credibility, neutrality and relevancy. @Slatersteven@Kautilya3@CapnJackSp please do the needful. Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hope this will be added soon as it is meeting the required criteria Srik84 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Slatersteven@CapnJackSp citations from this article are still not included in the analysis section. Srik84 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What does it add we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Two points

:::::1. The response is the military benchmark for responding to terrorism.

:::::2. Air defense systems and how well they did the job. This point is not present in any of the citations in the analysis section. Srik84 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is one source, so (at best) I would need to see any suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Suggested text:

::::::::Kim Heriot-Darragh, a fellow at the Indian Institute at the University of Melbourne wrote," New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs.This is worrying given the stakes involved.

::::::::Harsh pant,an defense analyst also notes another aspect of the air war: that India defense appears to have "performed remarkably well".The core of that system is the Integrated Air command and Control System (IACCS). A networked command and Control System designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats.

::::::::Pant made the calculation that India has " shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps before that was would have been clear to me Pakistan.So, he said," I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signalling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create new level of deterrence. Srik84 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Slatersteven I have give the text. There is one typo in last paragraph so I corrected it here:

:::::::::Pant made the calculation that India has " shown an ability to climb the escalation ladder, to conduct operations below the nuclear threshold and showcase its power in ways that, perhaps before that was not would not have been clear to Pakistan.So, he said," I do think that India feels that what it has destroyed in Pakistan and the signalling that it has done by reaching out to key targets in Pakistan should create new level of deterrence Srik84 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sounds good, there are some punctuation errors to correct, before it can be put up. DanBritton (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::We already cover increased levels of deterrence, And that India's air force did well, as well as India demonstrating its ability to strike targets deep in Pakistan, so all those adds is that it sets a new Benchmark in response. Which (it can be argued) is kind of covered with everything else. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Slatersteven please add these citations.one is on bench Mark and another one on air defense.

::::::::::Kim Heriot-Darragh, a fellow at the Indian Institute at the University of Melbourne wrote," New Delhi has set a new benchmark for military responses to terrorism that will be difficult to back down from when the next attack occurs.This is worrying given the stakes involved.

::::::::::Harsh pant,an defense analyst also notes another aspect of the air war: that India defense appears to have "performed remarkably well".The core of that system is the Integrated Air command and Control System (IACCS). A networked command and Control System designed to tie together as many relevant sensors and communications as possible to identify and target threats Srik84 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Slatersteven you can also add below point to the above para in the previous comment

:::::::::::If you look at the kind of projectiles that were launched towards India, whether drones, whether missiles, whether other munitions,” Pant said, “it’s remarkable how little damage India suffered and how its air defenses managed to hold. So I think from India’s vantage point, the air defenses actually performed remarkably.” Srik84 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't agree with that, if that's the fact then, there are multiple articles citing Pakistan so-called Diplomatic edge over US intervention and regarding the aerial dual as well. Like their is nothing new in the Diplomatic and the Atlantic Council articles when compared to the NYT and FT ones. So should we remove them as well? I suggest in adding the Breaking Defence article, as it has several new observations made by two reputed defence commentators DanBritton (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, I agree to this point Srik84 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Indian Army AD Unit recently showcased debris of intercepted Hatf-1 SRBMs.{{cite web|url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qpNDupee4b4&t=4s|title='Only 10% of ammo used' Indian Army Air Defenders Share Details|website=YouTube }}

Because it was showcased directly by the Army, I think it should be added into the Indian claims of interceptions of the infobox. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 please look into this matter. I think linguistic barriers are hindering Non-Indian editors from understanding the linked reference video. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I looked onto it, and HATF-1 SRBMs Destroyed should be added into Indian Claims section, as is showcased by the Indian Army. @Cdr. Erwin Smith@Kautilya3 please update the info box as per the article above Truthprevails999 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is not ANI an Indian news channel, and not an official government body? Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::First of all ANI is not a news channel, its a news agency more like Reuters, Thompson Reuters infact is a minority stakeholder by 49 percent in ANI. Secondly, its present not only in India but in various countries in South Asia, Middle East and Japan. And Thirdly, ANI and Reuters have partnered since 2018, where ANI news content will be available on Reuters connect. So it's just not another Indian news channel, its a News agency with Reuters in board both with shares and partnership. Hope that clarifies. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/reuters-and-ani-expand-partnership-idUSKBN1J705M/ Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::None of which is relevant to "Are they an official Indian government source?". Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/prasar-bharati-has-extended-contract-with-ani-media-for-two-more-years-ib-ministry/articleshow/98736223.cms?from=mdr Hope this answers your query, where the Indian IB Minister said the govt Public brodcastor Prasar Bharti has extended it's contract with ANI to provide live feed to DD news, a govt news group owned by Prasar Bharti. I just provided you the correct facts, now it's upto you. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No it does not, yes or no is all that needs to be said, what is the statement issued BY the Idian government, or by ANI? So right now, NO we should add a media claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I knew the reliability factor would be brought up. That's why I said it should be included 'Because it was showcased directly by the Indian Army'. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Exactly @Slatersteven Truthprevails999 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Reliability has not been brought up wp:undue has, this is not an official claim, and until the government issues an official statement, I stay with no, and that is my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Most part of the official briefings were done by Military personnel from the very beginning of the conflict, more so in case of Pakistan which was entirely done by the DGISPR.

::::::::Official statements given by Military personel Wg.Cdr. Vyomika Singh and Col. Sofiya Qureshi{{cite web | url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39486/Transcript+of+Special+briefing+on+OPERATION+SINDOOR+May+10+2025 | title=Transcript of Special briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 10, 2025) | work=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India }} during the conflict "There were also several high-speed missile attacks noticed subsequently after 0140 hours in the night at several air bases in Punjab" corroborates the visuals in video and the Army Major's statement who identifies himself as one of the 'Air Defenders of Punjab'.

::::::::That being said, I respect your viewpoint. I request other editors to share their thoughts on this topic @Withmoralcare @captain jack sparrow@Rosguill@Kautilya3. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Folks, this is going nowhere, Please drop it. If there is a WP:SECONDARY source covers it, we can revisit the issue. Right now, it is a pointless request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do not understand. If the Army itself is claiming something it intercepted, how is it giving undue weightage ?

:In that case, should Pakistani DGISPR claims be omitted too ?

:Aren't Armed Forces the primary source of information in all armed conflicts?

:They do the fighting, others only report it. So if a comment is coming directly from the Army, why is it deemed WP:UNDUE ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's what I was mentioning not only ANI, there are 10+ Indian news sources showing the Indian Army press brief in which they show debris of PL 15 MISSILES, YIHA loitering munitions and HATF-1. I don't see a reason why they can't be included in Indian Claims section, by citing WP:UNDUE? It's the Army's claim after-all. Go ahead @Cdr. Erwin Smith Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If there are 10+ sources, then share them here. If they qualify as RS, it can be added. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::They are now blocked, they cant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can we add that 300-400 drones were shot down in the Indian claim section? [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/byker-yiha-iii-kamikaze-drones-neutralised-by-army-air-defence/article69560487.ece 1] - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's already added, and the number is much higher. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, I didn’t see that. By the way, did government sources say that 600 drones were shot down, or is it just Indian media? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Government sources corroborated by military sources speaking to the Indian media. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My fellow editor, this report from an WP:RSP is showing the same debris as showcased in the video I referred to beforehttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistans-drone-and-missile-attacks-targeting-the-golden-temple-in-amritsar-were-thwarted-indian-army/article69594333.ece. So now a secondary source is also corroborating the statement of the 'Serving' Army Major in the video.

::::I don't think there will be any more problems in adding HATF-1 SRBMs in the list of Indian interceptions @CapnJackSp @Kautilya3 Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Is this an official Indian government statement? Also does these mention the Hatf-1? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I thought you already had your last word. But since you asked, Yes.

::::::The Indian Army is a part of the Indian government. It is one of the three branches of the Indian Armed Forces, and the Indian Ministry of Defence is responsible for coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government related to national security and the armed forces, including the Indian Army. The President of India is the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces.

::::::So what the MEA Transcript stated on May 10th is now being specified, elaborated and corroborated by not only the 'Serving' Army Major of the Army AD Unit by showing the debris of intercepted targets including the Hatf-1, but also by a secondary WP:RSP. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was responding to your claim that there is now (in effect) consensus, and read wp:or, unless you can provide a quote where the source says this was debris from a Hatf-1, the source does not support the claim. So, yes there are still problems adding it. And until I say explicitly add it, assume I object. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We can include Hatf-1 claims via this link, https://www.wionews.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-indian-army-displays-pakistani-missile-debris-watch-1747647949093

::::::::@Slatersteven DanBritton (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You can just search Indian army show debris in YouTube, and you'll get several non WP:RSN Indian sources that can be included here, like The Print, NDTV, ANI News, NewsX Live, The Tribune etc. So any of them can be used here. DanBritton (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It doesnt name the system, we could add "missiles intercepted" based on this though. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Go to 1:21 in the video cited on the WION article, it clearly mentions HATF-1 fragments intercepted. @CapnJackSp DanBritton (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

The infobox currently says "several missiles intercepted". Please suggest the revision you are seeking and provide a WP:RS that says exactly the same as the proposed revision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}