Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

Incorrect citation doesn't cover the text

In the following statement:

"India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot[88] but subsequently the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed[16]"

Source 88 doesn't say anything like that.

Further, India never denied Pakistan's claim of capturing "a" pilot. They have however denied the claim of denying the capture of mulitple pilot*s*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.73 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

" India had initially said that all of its pilots were accounted for, contradicting Pakistani claims that they had captured a pilot.".Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a misleading statement. There is no official press release from India claiming that. This statement is properly quoted in other newspaper reports as coming from anonymous defense sources which should not be presented as an official Indian statement:

• "Indian military **sources** told NDTV that all pilots are accounted for." https://www.asianage.com/world/south-asia/270219/2-indian-military-aircraft-shot-in-pakistani-airspace-pilot-arrested-claims-pak.html
• Similarly "defence sources said on Wednesday" in - http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/feb/27/no-reports-of-any-iaf-jet-damaged-in-action-by-indias-adversaries-say-sources-1944413.html

None of these articles elaborate on who these "sources" were and it would be disingenuous to cite them. 14:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)2620:102:400B:8D04:981:28E3:B75:728B (talk)

You said the source does not say it, it does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave BBC a benefit of doubt and assumed they meant something else when they said "accounted for", but after seeing the same phrase used elsewhere I am more confident that this is just a case of shoddy journalism from the BBC. 71.245.186.73 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks very much like wp:or, it said it you just assumed they did not mean it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not original research, because I am citing other sources which clarify the statement made in the BBC. We need to be careful about using primary sources, specially if there are multiple other sources contradicting a single source. 150.212.127.2 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The BBC is not a wp:primary source. Also both of your sources say that India said none of its pilots had been shot down, would you rather that was said?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

All I am saying since the start is that if the newspapers are using "anonymous" sources to make a claim then it should not be cited as an official "Indian" statement. The way it is written currently on Wikipedia makes it read like Indian government or military said that. The Indian spokespersons never made any such claim. Their statements have always acknowledged one pilot "missing in action". 71.245.186.73 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I would still argue that BBC is a a wp:primary source: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events", "Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources? 71.245.186.73 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality vs readability

I'm reading this version for the first time, and my impression is that readability being seriously affected by the admirable attempts to maintain neutrality. Almost every potentially contentious line reflects both the perspectives of the Indian and Pakistani government, even in instances where their opinions aren't important. I am happy to make edits, but I thought it might be better to post here, so that I can resolve any potential conflicts before making changes.

Some examples:

• "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing; Pakistan's government condemned the attack. Nearly two weeks later, on 26 and 27 February, airstrikes were conducted by India and Pakistan against targets in each other's territory, or in regions under each other's control."'

That the Pakistani government condemned the attack is relevant of course, but not at this particular juncture. "Pakistan-based" does not automatically mean "Pakistan-sponsored", and there is no need to defend against that here. It would be far better if, for example, the line read: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". This would lead nicely into why the response was airstrikes in Pakistani territory, without implying that the accusation is correct.

• The first airstrike was conducted by India in the early morning hours of February 26 in the vicinity of the town of Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan,[24] just inside the province's boundary with Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[25]

This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line.

• Pakistan's military, the first to announce the airstrike on February 26 morning,[26] described the Indian planes as dropping their payload in an uninhabited wooded hilltop area near Balakot, purported photographs of which they posted on social media.[27]

The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote.

• The second airstrike, a retaliatory one,

Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none.

• Videos of the pilot, his face swollen from injuries allegedly sustained by beatings from a Pakistani crowd before capture, were posted on social media, but later removed after Indian protests.[32] The following day Pakistan announced its intention to return the pilot to India in what it claimed was a gesture of goodwill,[33] thereafter returning him on March 1.[34]

This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway.

I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to chronicle everyone's opinion, but just to present information in an encyclopaedic style for a layperson to understand better. India and Pakistan's opinions are important, of course, but should be evaluated separately. For instance, there are important implications for the language they used to justify their strikes. India used curious language: "non-military pre-emptive strikes" - when such a justification is not yet accepted for use of force in international law.

I would love to hear the opinions of other editors before I make any changes. If I don't receive any, of course, I will just proceed to improve the article as it appears best to me. I am of course assuming good faith all the way and ask my fellow editors to do the same. Thanks!

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply to Kohlrabi Pickle

>>>"The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". Not mentioning the Pakistani's government's reaction, and right away, makes WP complicit in the hackneyed Indian implication that the Pakistani government had a hand in it. The Pakistani government condemned it, long long before Indians promised any retaliation. The initial Indian reactions were muted. ("I strongly condemn this dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not go in vain,” Mr. Modi said on Twitter. Other officials were more emphatic that there would be a price to pay and that a response was in the making." See NY Times report. You can certainly change it to: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support. The Pakistani government condemned the attack and denied any involvement." >>>This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line. Of course it is noteworthy. Indians have not entered sovereign Pakistani territory (in contrast to the disputed region of Pakistani administered Kashmir) since 1971. They penetrated five miles into sovereign Pakistani territory. >>> The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote. Of course it is important; otherwise why would the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post be mentioning it. There is no guarantee that the Indians would have even announced it in the manner they did had the Pakistanis not announced it first. The photographs are important, for, to date, the Indians have produced no evidence, photographic or other, for the existence of their airstrike. Without the Pakistani evidence, or the later Western satellite evidence, largely confirming the Pakistani version, we'd have no evidence of any sort. >>>Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none. Despite the sabre rattling in the Indian media, India had been bending over backwards to say that theirs was not retaliatory (let alone revenge), only preemptive to head off the new threat they had information about. Pakistan was clear that theirs was retaliatory. The language in the lead is pretty much the language in the major Western English-language newspapers. >>> This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway. But this is not war, and India and Pakistan have not signed Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II which extend the conventions to international- and internal armed conflicts. If India had, it would have been under much grater scrutiny in Kashmir itself. Were this war, there is nothing in GC that says that a POW be returned in three days. India took over a year to return Pakistani POWs in 1971. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Kohlrabi Pickle:, Sorry I didn't realize you are a new reader; otherwise I would have been less pithy in my explanations. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolrabi Pickle's reply to Fowler&fowler's reply

>>>"The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support, and promised retaliation against Pakistan following the attack". Not mentioning the Pakistani's government's reaction, and right away, makes WP complicit in the hackneyed Indian implication that the Pakistani government had a hand in it. The Pakistani government condemned it, long long before Indians promised any retaliation. The initial Indian reactions were muted. ("I strongly condemn this dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not go in vain,” Mr. Modi said on Twitter. Other officials were more emphatic that there would be a price to pay and that a response was in the making." See NY Times report. You can certainly change it to: "The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing Jaish-e-Mohammed state support. The Pakistani government condemned the attack and denied any involvement." I'm leaving aside my opinion on the merit of the Indian claim. This version is fine. Without the Indian government's perspective, it is unclear why they chose to respond with airstrikes. I hope you can see what I mean - without it, readability is impaired. >>>This is a Pakistani claim. India claims that it crossed deep into Pakistan. A simple Google Maps search shows Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which the Indian Air Force would have to have crossed the entirety of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to enter. In any case, it would only be a noteworthy line if Indian jets actually did cross deep into Pakistan, because that is out of the norm. If not, it is hardly worth mentioning. I would delete this line. Of course it is noteworthy. Indians have not entered sovereign Pakistani territory (in contrast to the disputed region of Pakistani administered Kashmir) since 1971. They penetrated five miles into sovereign Pakistani territory. Yes, but if the point is just to establish that India crossed into Pakistani territory, surely this is established by the line that airstrikes were conducted in each other's territory. Or if the point is that it, for the first time, crossed into undisputed Pakistani territory (i.e. 5 miles into KPK, rather than AJK), then I think the line should be amended to reflect that. Perhaps "The first airstrike was conducted by India in the early morning hours of February 26 in the vicinity of the town of Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. This is approximately 5 miles inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the deepest that Indian armed forces have entered into undisputed Pakistani territory since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." This sounds important enough to feature in the lead section. I am hesitant to use the word "sovereign" because both India and Pakistan claim territorial sovereignty over the entirety of the Kashmir region, and to use your earlier words, this would make WP complicit in the Indian claim that AJK is not sovereign Pakistani territory. >>> The phrases "the first to announce the airstrike" and "purported photographs of which they posted on social media" seem hardly worthy of special mention. What does it matter which side announced it first? Photographs are also merely evidence, and in this case are even disputed. I think it should just be a footnote. Of course it is important; otherwise why would the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post be mentioning it. There is no guarantee that the Indians would have even announced it in the manner they did had the Pakistanis not announced it first. The photographs are important, for, to date, the Indians have produced no evidence, photographic or other, for the existence of their airstrike. Without the Pakistani evidence, or the later Western satellite evidence, largely confirming the Pakistani version, we'd have no evidence of any sort. I don't mean that it is completely unworthy of attention, but that it is not noteworthy enough to be in the lead section. It is based on conjecture. There is equally no evidence that the Indians would not have announced it in the manner they did. The photographs are a claim; they could have been taken anywhere. It is quite forgivable that India does not have photographs of enemy territory - their fighter jets were occupied with fighting and they don't have access to the area they claim to have bombed. The satellite evidence, which I understand are unverified and were leaked to the Western media, is the closest thing to objective evidence, and might have a place in the lead section. i.e. "India claimed that the airstrike was directed against a terrorist training camp, and caused the deaths of a large number of terrorists. However, satellite images leaked to Western mainstream media outlets appear to support Pakistan's claim that Indian bombs were dropped on an uninhabited area of Balakot." I would not quote either Indian or Pakistani mainstream media because plenty of effort has been expended elsewhere to show that both were reporting the news selectively. >>>Both airstrikes were "retaliatory" - one for the Pulwama attack, and the other for the initial airstrikes. To use the word "retaliatory" for both is not worthwhile, to use them for one is disingenuous, and so I would suggest using them for none. Despite the sabre rattling in the Indian media, India had been bending over backwards to say that theirs was not retaliatory (let alone revenge), only preemptive to head off the new threat they had information about. Pakistan was clear that theirs was retaliatory. The language in the lead is pretty much the language in the major Western English-language newspapers. I think it is unwise to give so much credence to India's claims, considering that they had been threatening a response to the Pulwama attacks for two weeks leading up to the airstrikes. We know that in international diplomacy, countries posture for various strategic and legal reasons. This is to say that the airstrikes may have in reality been retaliatory, but that it was decided that the official position should be different for strategic reasons. This is important of course, but there is a great deal of complexity to their choice of language. I think it is better to phrase it as the way in which these countries have chosen to justify their strikes, rather than to declare their justifications factual. I suggest that we have a line reading "India has justified its airstrikes as a pre-emptive, non-military strike against JeM terrorists, and Pakistan has justified their airstrikes as retaliation to India's airstrikes, and self-defensive." The complexities of the language they used can be discussed elsewhere. >>> This is a very generous line indeed, to the point of being misleading. Ignoring both Indian and Pakistani perspectives, posting video of the captured soldier is a clear breach of Article 13, Geneva Convention (III), which states that prisoners of war "must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It is irrelevant in the lead paragraphs that Pakistan considered it a gesture of goodwill (they may well have), because Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities," so Pakistan was under an international legal duty to do so anyway. But this is not war, and India and Pakistan have not signed Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II which extend the conventions to international- and internal armed conflicts. If India had, it would have been under much grater scrutiny in Kashmir itself. Were this war, there is nothing in GC that says that a POW be returned in three days. India took over a year to return Pakistani POWs in 1971 I'm a little lost. This is international armed conflict, and surely the Geneva Conventions apply to that? Art 2 of GC III states that "the present Convention shall apply to ... any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." Surely this means that the capture of Varthaman is covered. Even if not, the fact that 174 states have ratified the Additional Protocols is strong evidence that they have crystallised into rules of customary international law, which are binding regardless unless there has been conscientious objection by either country. And India's delayed return of Pakistani POWs in 1971 cannot be used as justification to say that "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" means that 1 year is a legally acceptable timeframe. It would only be useful if you want to contrast the two, i.e. Pakistan returned Varthaman within 3 days, whereas Indian forces returned Pakistani POWs 1 year after XYZ in 1971. But even this, as I hope you agree, does not merit being placed in the lead section. The point of all this is that I found it difficult to get through the lead section when I read it, and an unreadable or difficult-to-read article is unproductive for anyone involved. Best regards, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: No worries, and thank you for your comments. Happy to engage as long as it's reasoned, detached and will improve the article :) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Walls of text are never a good idea, a few points, Mansehra District is not "DEEP IN Kashmir".Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, and noted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Will avoid, thanks. These are just examples, and I'm only suggesting minor reworking. If the general sentiment is that I'm off my rocker, then I'll desist. Also, I suppose "deep" is relative (I assume you meant "Pakistan" and not "Kashmir"), but the idea is that if you have to cross an entire state to get to Mansehra, it qualifies. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the size of the state. At its closest it is only about 65 miles from India.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

KP: No worries, not off your rocker at all. I have to run now. I'll answer in more detail in the evening, but a few points: Azad Kashmir is not sovereign Pakistani territory, only nominally self-governing, administered by Pakistan, in contrast to J&K, which India considers a state (though not recognized so by the UN or the major powers, with the exception of Russia). The satellite images were not leaked. Outfits such as Planet Labs in the US have their own satellites with hi-res cameras. See the Australian institute's assessment of a few days ago. Not sure if original GCs apply to undeclared wars; its a gray area from what I know. But since India and Pakistan did not sign the protocols, they will hardly consider the protocols-in-disguise to be binding. What happened on Feb 26 is a story for which there is almost no real proof. It is important not to represent it to be unequivocally about real events. That is the India-POV I was concerned about, and still am. There is no evidence, for example, that Mirage 2000s were used. No pictures of pilots taking off, or returning, let alone in flight over Pakistan. The 2019 Balakot airstrike article makes that cardinal error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for your comments, thanks. Just a couple of quick responses, so you can address these in your reply. Why does "nominally self-governing" mean that it is not sovereign Pakistani territory? I take your point on the hi-res images. I am happy to search for academic commentary on the GCs and India-Pakistan. Don't have any off the top of my head but I read some, all of which state unequivocally that Pakistan breached int'l law by letting Varthaman be videoed. Re the non-signature: it does not matter whether they consider it binding. Customary international law is binding on all states whether or not they accept it unless they mount conscientious objection, i.e. they vocally and consistently reject the purported rule. I take your point on India-POV, and will guard against it, though I would caution against what seems to be a very high expectation of evidence. I can't quite see how photographs of pilots taking off or returning would have helped; surely these are evidence of the planes taking flight and not of an airstrike mission, but who are we expecting to have taken photographs inside Pakistan? I imagine that the fighter jets were trying hard not to be photographed. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(i) In Pakistani governance, Azad Kashmir is not sovereign in the way Khyber Pakhtunkwa province is. It has some connection with an eventual plebiscite ... some conditions were perhaps drafted so in early UNSC resolutiions for all of Kashmir (which India may have violated by making J&K a state). (ii) I meant photographic evidence, not pictures of the planes. Eg. camera footage of the dashboard showing some unmistakable identification of the Mirage, showing GPS, altimeter, speedometer, date, time, starting in Indian territory and turning around near Balakot and returning. Not that hard. (iii) Did Western sources too carry the GC bit? The Indian government and media did of course, frenetically boning up en mass. What about internal conflicts? Neither India nor Pakistan care about GCs there. If GCs 1949 subsume the later protocols,

especially Protocol II (which India and Pakistan did not sign) then both are in violation big time. see UN report on Human Rights 2018.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have some commitments coming up so I probably will not have time to make any changes, as I expected I would. This discussion is moving towards disagreement on niche points. If you believe that everything in there is essential, then that's fine. Thanks for engaging. Just a general note that the lead section makes for difficult reading. Best regards. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: I have rewritten parts of the lead, taking some of your input into account. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

In infobox under Causalities and Loses section, in casualties1 please add “1 UAV shot down” and “7 soldiers killed 19 injured” above “(Pakistan claim)” Sources are The News International and Anadolu Agency. 119.160.101.101 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The two cited sources don't seem particularly reliable for a controversial topic like this. MrClog (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MrClog Can you explain how The News International and Anadolu Agency are not reliable sources? Here are some more sources, UAV shot down: DAWN, Economic Times Soldiers killed: Russia Today, Dunya News

April 2019 Update

3 Pakistani soldiers killed in cross border firing.

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201904021073749556-india-pakistan-cross-border-firing/

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/pakistan-army-says-3-soldiers-dead-in-indian-firing-indian-army-sources-say-toll-higher-119040200300_1.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1108137/india-pakistan-war-world-war-3-poonch-Jammu-Kashmir

Also ariel threat:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/scare-in-air-india-pakistan-scramble-jets/articleshow/68679326.cms

Dilbaggg (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we need the recent tag, its still ongoing.Slatersteven (talk) 13

47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

A Mi-17 was lost, either to friendly fire or technical faults. Add it to Indian Causalities. Khan79797979 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It has been discussed already,see old threads DBigXrayᗙ 19:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan and F-16

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/

"India’s claim that one of its fighter pilots shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet in an aerial battle between the two nuclear powers in February appears to be wrong. Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." 39.33.145.243 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Again no official source cited or public statement is being referred to. A "senior official" said so an so can't be cited as proof. Here's an official Pakistan statement for example - https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/484967-Pak-Army-shooting-down-Indian-aircraft-is-part-of-history-now-ISPR. It does not deny the use of F-16. 71.245.186.73 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't admit usage of F16s either. It is more like someone getting annoyed by constant Indian claims that PAF used F16s and they are like "Whatever, your jet still came crashing down". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.227.66 (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I was giving an example of a source when it is made as a public statement. Those kind of statements should be cited than anonymous ones. 71.245.186.73 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

US Report contradicts Indian claims of any F16 shot down.

The much awaited US report on Pakistani usage of F16s is out. US officials have told the FP that Pakistan had invited them to count all their F16s and they have found that no F16s are missing. Maybe it is time for that to be reflected in "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.227.66 (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not a US report, but a story in Foreign Policy magazine which quotes unnamed US officials who were among those conducting the count. However, the fact that the story has been picked up by major news organization, makes it credible. The various related Wikipedia pages will have to reflect this altered reality. The strike itself, from all the Western satellite data available, does not seem to bear out the official Indian claims. This is not good news for India, for it suggests the distinct possibility that the some major aspects of the airstrikes were a Hindu nationalist smoke and mirrors show, though Pakistan, by not granting access for journalists to examine the madrasa about Jaba village, outside Balakot, is not helping its own credibility.It also casts some doubt on the general preparedness of India's air force, at least that is what the Foreign Policy article seems to suggest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So both sides (as I think I suggested over at RSN) cannot be relied upon. I think this would need attribution until more RS pick it tp.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

True. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If I may, how about we word it as neutral as possible, e.g...

On 4 April, it was reported that U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Pakistan’s F-16s and found none missing. One US official also disagreed with India's claim regarding usage restrictions on F-16s.

A consensus on this would be ideal. ChopperHarley (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, let's wait 24 hours and see if New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Independent pick up the story. The reporter is Lara Seligman, Foreign Policy magazine's Pentagon correspondent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

attribute it to the source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The New York times does carry the Reuters feed on its website. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg picked it up too. In my opinion I think there is no reason to doubt FP's report. ChopperHarley (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To avoid close paraphrasing, I would prefer: "On 4 April, 2019, it was reported in ''Foreign Policy'' magazine that unnamed senior U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter asserted that US personnel have recently completed a physical count of Pakistan’s F-16s and have found none missing. One US official also disagreed with India's claim that usage restrictions disallow Pakistan from employing F-16s in military encounters with India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed I think that would be fine until any further information is released on this matter. ChopperHarley (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I want to mention that Foreign Policy is a prominent, award-winning publication. What is to doubt about it? ChopperHarley (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't bother with celebrating FP. It has no Pulitzer yet. A let clunky version would be: "On 4 April, 2019, it was reported in Foreign Policy magazine that unnamed senior U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter asserted that the US has recently completed a physical count of Pakistan’s F-16s and has found none missing. One US official also disagreed with India's claim that usage restrictions disallow Pakistan from employing F-16s in military encounters with India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)