Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

See also: [1] 150.212.127.97 (talk) 14:57, 5 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)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/ Itdanjum (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasee1230 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

3 indian soldiers killed Hari bhakar, yash paul, karamjeet singh. 1: 18th march

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/one-soldier-killed-several-injured-in-cross-border-firing-in-rajouri-district/article26566243.ece/amp/ 2: 21st march

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/soldier-killed-as-pakistan-army-violates-ceasefire-along-loc-in-rajouri/article26597845.ece/amp/ 3:24th march

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/army-personnel-killed-in-loc-firing-by-pakistan/article26624716.ece/amp/

Wikipedia is not a live news feed. we do not need a blow by blow, day by day account of the action.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

    I am really sorry, i thought it seems right to mention these too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasee1230 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 

Irrelevant, we are not a repository of indiscriminate facts. Please see wp:notnews'Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  I guess this is enough about to show how many casualties are there on both sides as there just Pakistani soldiers were mentioned? >>> 1 more indian soldier and 2 civilians and 3 Pakistani soldiers and one civilian) 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/india-kashmir-pakistan-clashes-civilians-killed-nuclear-armed-neighbors-tension/ Qasee1230 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Pilot in hospital

In the early reports about the dogfight between India and Pakistan, Maj. Gen. Ghafoor has made public statement saying that one pilot ('Abhinandan") was captured, while another one was moved to a hospital:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1466347: "Our ground forces arrested two pilots; one of them was injured and has been shifted to CMH [Combined Military Hospital] and, God-willing, he will be taken care of," said the army official."The other one is with us."

Do we have any reports following up on this? It's seem like substantial statement about "two" pilots being captured as a specific hospital was also named. 2620:102:400B:8D04:8567:57EE:A279:42E3 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We already cover the claim, this adds nothing to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The article says, "It was also claimed that Pakistan Army had captured two Indian pilots but a subsequent statement revised the count to one". It doesn't say that a Pakistan Army General made a public statement. The way it reads right now is very different. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We can change it to Pakistan claimed, not sure it changes anything substantively. But I also am not sure (this late in the day, now it seems to not even be true) that is is worth it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe it does make a difference in interpreting that line. Please contrast this with the issue above [2], where it says India made a statement without citing any official statement. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And as I said this is old news now. Also we do say it was a Pakistani claim, in the sentence before the one you quote.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We are here to cover the issue accurately, old news or not. The statement you are referring to says nothing about Pakistan capturing two pilots, and one specifically hospitalized. It seems too specific of claim to ignore it. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"the spokesman further claimed that the Pakistan Air Force had shot down two Indian aircraft..." it is a follow on from the sentence before. It does not mater if they claimed one was in hospital, that is now past news and we know out of date (and not true).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

An official statement must be cited appropriately, as well as the fact we are quoting anonymous sources in [3] should be clearly specified. It would be be good to have this issue reviewed by a another editor. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Making a mountain out of the molehill of whether it was one pilot or two, is the failed Indian strategy for minimizing the humiliating loss on February 27. An Indian pilot was shot down. He was in Pakistani custody. Pakistan returned him in short order. India has been bending over backwards to rewrite this story by interspersing its every sentence with: the pilot didn't go down silently, he shot down an f-16; the pilot was shot down because Pakistan was illegally using f-16s; the Pakistanis were violating the Geneva conventions; India's friends in the world community pressured Pakistan to return the pilot, thereby demonstrating India's clout; the pilot's bravery prevented further war; the pilot showed the Pakistanis he wouldn't answer their questions; the pilot's mustache is a fashion trend; the pilot's father said India needs f-16s; the air traffic controller in India who spotted the Pakistani planes will receive a medal. The lady doth protest too much, Methinks. Besides, as Slatersteven's said, the story is old.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:Fowler&fowler This is comment is uncalled for. Let's stick with editing the article here and keep the discussion about the writing. I am trying to make a point you are equating two very different kinds of sources in the article's narrative. One is about using anonymous sources and making it seem like an official Indian stance, while the statement which was made by the official spokesperson from the Pakistan side is written as "it was claimed that..." -- this is the point that I am arguing for and this is very relevant for the current state of the article. We need to distinguish between claims made in the media vs. public statements by official representatives either from the civil government or the military. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It does not, you cannot take one sentence out of a paragraph. We say it was a spokesman who said it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to change that to active voice (claimed by whom? it is the same spokesperson in the preceding sentence? -- We can source these statements from the original video recordings of the press briefings in the news media). For the apparent "Indian" claim in [4], the article still says: "India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot" -- This statement is false because the actual Indian statement has always acknowledged "one pilot missing in action" in their press briefings [5]. The articles that you are citing are only quoting anonymous sources. 150.212.127.97 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian Mil Mi 17

I have really concern about that friendly fire on Mil mi 17, now it is proven that india blew Mil Mi 17 thinking of Pakistani Jets so this automatically add this event into Pakistan India Standoff. Now it should be added in the indian Side Casualties as being friendly fired. This is obvious it is the part of standoff now and i guess there is no intend or reason to not adding it in the Indian casualties section. https://www.rt.com/news/455066-india-helicopter-friendly-fire/ P.s: I am not being biased just have concerns. Qasee1230 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When the first sentence says "seems" I am not sure it can be called definitive proof.Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess we should focus on reality from now instead of on fiction?shouldn't we? Obviously it is clear Indian Mil Mi 17 was fired on the same day the Ariel battle was ongoing, friendly fired or mistakenly killing of own soldiers has always been added in casualties records Ex- Wars,Battles and conflicts.

No, as it is only clear it came down, not why.Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

But i am not asking about the timing or why they shot, the thing is that India fired their Mil Mi 17 thinking of Pakistani jets, what if they had shot down Pakistani jet at that time wouldn't it be counted in Pakistan loses?. Qasee1230 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the thing is you have a source that says "they seem to have fired on their Mil Mi 17 thinking it was Pakistani jets", which does not make it a fact, it makes it conjecture.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

[6] here another source, if they did not shot Mil Mi 17 in thinking of Pakistani jet then we also don't have any proof or any IAF statement that how and why it was shot only these sources come across and news about Mil Mi 17 that IAF itself shot down at the same day when the battle was ongoing, not probably sure I can't find example of any nation who would shot their helicopter without any reason and more importantly when they are having intense conflict, So it will get more fiction and more imaginary why they shot down their helicopter.And also IAF released no official statement which could contradict the Blew Of MIl Mi 17, so i guess we should rely on these sources (most importantly these are Indian sources). Shouldn't we ?. Qasee1230 (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We can rely on them, for what they actually say (please read wp:v. And, No, it does it matter if India has chosen not to "prove" they did not do it, as they (as your latest source says) are investigating. And thus may well be doing what we should be doing, waiting until there is definitive proof of what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure Qasee1230 (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Claims of Casualties?

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 Qasee1230 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan claims " is used in a number of your sources, so they say it is a claim, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Another day Another claim of casualties, another ISPR statement/claim on retaliation over unprovoked firing by Indian Army. [7] [8] I know these are just claims but sufficient for "claimed casualties" from both sides?. Qasee1230 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need this, what is encyclopedic about an constantly updating list of claims? Why not just wait till it is all over and we can give a final casualty total?Slatersteven (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure Qasee1230 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot"

My previous discussion was archived, but the statement that "India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot" is false.

India's official statement has been consistent [9] that one pilot was indeed "missing in action".

If you really wish to include this, you need to specify that Indian media (NDTV) sources contradicted Pakistan's claims of capturing a pilot:

• "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 2620:102:400B:8D04:2142:DF21:DCFA:4C68 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed on this topic, they did contradicted the claims of pakistan of pilot's capture, you can check the ref which are given in Pakistan-India border skirmishes 2019, Real page. And also now no need to talk about this, this has been already done and it's past now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auth673 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As was said, we have discussed this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 11 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)

Haha I like your sarcasm but I was merely pointing out that Foreign Policy is not just some minor publication as you earlier seemed to perceive it. It's a major, award-winning American publication and hence why there shouldn't be a reason to not recognize it. ChopperHarley (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be "Indian" nationalist smoke and mirrors show but not "Hindu" nationalist. India has a healthy population other religions as well. Please do not use language like that. 71.245.186.73 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry? ChopperHarley (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To the IP: I know India's demography. I meant what I wrote. India's government is Hindu nationalist. That doesn't in the least imply that Pakistan is credible or saintly. Their reaction after the Pulwama tragedy was entirely off-handed, and they still haven't unequivocally and convincingly condemned terror groups based in Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ChopperHarley: Not minor, but not major either. We cannot editorialize. It would not be WP:NPOV. Just attribute it to FP, like Slatersteven said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If I have created any confusion, my apology, but I was just unclear as to why you was hesitating to quote [Foreign Policy]] properly and instead was choosing to quote FP with double-quotes, and also chose to wait for NYT, WP and Guardian to pick it up rather than recognize the original source. Don't get me wrong, I respect what you do and admire your efforts on Wikipedia but I'm a bit confused here that's all. Keep up the great work. =) ChopperHarley (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't quotes, but italics employed in any publication's name. Its one story, in one lesser-known magazine written by a little-known 29-year-old reporter. NY Times stories, I know from personal experience, are vetted very rigorously. If Jefferey Gettleman, the Delhi bureau chief of the NYT, and Pulitzer winner, were writing it, it would be another thing. That is my judgment, but there it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not going to count her age of 29 into question of her credibility now, surely. :D She's a highly experienced journalist in her field, she's worked on many aviation defence related articles in the past and not just with FP. Please don't judge her just because she's not working for NYT or hasn't won a Pulitzer prize haha. Come on, I'm sure you didn't mean it. As a Wikipedia moderator/contributer sure you know that you must maintain neutrality, impartiality. We are not here to judge writers of Verifiable and Reliable sources. :D ChopperHarley (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it would be good to treat the Foreign Policy article with some healthy skepticism as well. We need to more credible sources to verify these statements before saying them as facts. They may have their own vested interests in specific narratives, such as promoting American weapons: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/05/indias-dogfight-loss-could-be-a-win-for-u-s-weapons-makers-lockheed-boeing-pakistan/ 150.212.127.97 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect IP but as one good moderator - (@Guy Macon:) - recently roughly put it, it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide if each party, India or Pakistan, (or both) or a 3rd party source are lying and delete or doubt what they say on that basis. It is Wikipedia's job to accurately and neutrally report what each side says and then to accurately report what reliable 3rd party sources report. ChopperHarley (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ChopperHarley: Or if Pamela Constable the Afghanistan and Pakistan bureau chief of the Washington Post were writing it, it too would be another thing. I'm no longer recommending that we wait for the other newspapers to cite it on Wikipedia, only to mention FP by name in the sentence, which in any case you are. It does appear to be a credible story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Maria Abi-Habib of the NY Times writing in early March that India is yet to offer any proof it shot down an F-16 is an example of a reliable third part assessment of the f-16 claims. This FP story, however, is a different kind of story. It is not directly an assessment of the Indian and Pakistani claims, but a breaking story about US Pentagon officials' claims. It is those claims, I believe, that will need to be independently vetted. If Lara Seligman can get the officials to talk, I'm sure more established newspapers can too easily. If it remains a one-off story, then that is what it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Were those Maria Abi-Habib's tweets that you are referring to regarding F-16 proof? Can twitter tweets or social media posts be used as citation on Wikipedia? ChopperHarley (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter? I wasn't aware she was tweeting independently of what she writes in the NY Times. Maybe it wasn't her. In this fog of claims, it is hard to keep track. But my main point remains valid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes she tweeted too on F-16 maater and what US officials thought of the Feb 27 skirmish. For interest sake, could you link me the article Maria Abi-Habib wrote about "India is yet to offer any proof it shot down an F-16"? Thanks in advance. Regarding fog of war, yes I'm with you on that but now the dust has settled and we should start to see a clearer picture. ChopperHarley (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And oops, pardon me for the little typo :D ChopperHarley (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We have been generally avoiding the smoke and mirrors generated by "unnamed officials". I don't see why we will make an exception in this case. It is after all an American-made fighter plane that is being talked about. Neither is Lara Seligman a disinterested party [10]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The FP's report has been picked by various credible neutral sources/cites internationally and I guess just because of not naming the officials doesn't make it unreal. Obviously it is f-16 and US would really take it serious or take in favor of it because of nonexistent Indian evidence, only if India had provided credible evidence, US and Pakistan won't hesitate to accept it. We should be more neutral instead of putting our interests ahead. And also the source which you provided doesn't say Pakistan used f-16 nor it says there is evidence.And also in the source it said "The United States said Sunday that it was looking to confirm India’s claim, since Pakistan’s use of an F-16 to down an Indian fighter could potentially violate U.S. agreements. The U.S. State Department and Pentagon declined to comment on the record." Which she have now confirmed in new Article about f-16 where it says “It would be incredibly naive for us to believe that we could sell some type of equipment to Pakistan that they would not intend to use in a fight,” [11] so by this i don't think foreign policy is being on wrong side. Best Regards. Qasee1230 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This report says that the US spokesperson (unnamed) have refuted the FP report and said that they are unaware of any such audits. Again, no names given. https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/not-aware-pentagon-on-pak-f-16-count-after-feb-aerial-dogfight-with-iaf/story-Rw4gSknuuSBnMc2EyYe62H.html DoomDriven (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

IN the great scheme of things I would trust a neutral third party source to one from a belligerent. But until there is some kind of official announcement form the US I am not sure this is good enough for inclusion anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A US defense department or state department spokesperson, never speaks off the record in an official capacity. The Hindustan Times does not have the kind of access to the Pentagon, or the State department, that will to enable it to ferret out behind the scenes details. In more public scenarios, an Indian correspondent is given a few seconds at the end of an hour-long press briefing, that is, if he is lucky. In response to the Indian reporter's question, the press secretary says something in American idiomatic double speak, but making it plenty obvious that he has no interest in answering the question. The Indian reporter usually misinterprets the words and writes whatever he wants for his Indian audience. See the very end of this recent briefing, and I mean the very end. The Foreign Policy story, on the other hand, is not only written by a American journalist with a specialty in defense matters, the Pentagon correspondent for FP. It is moreover given more heft by the remarks of the MIT political science professor, Vipin Narang, which accompanies it. Narang would have found the story credible in order to be interviewed for it, and, especially, in order to voice agreement with the story's main claim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Having just read the Foreign Policy story by Lara Seligman for the second time, and having noted Narang's words: "As details come out, it looks worse and worse for the Indians,” Narang said. “It looks increasingly like India failed to impose significant costs on Pakistan, but lost a plane and a helicopter of its own in the process." It is very unlikely that an MIT political science professor would have said those words without being aware of the main claims of the story he was being interviewed for. I am now leaning to: including the FP story in his article in a one sentence summary, but obviously not the HT story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

I think that this entire section will have to be scrapped because it based on the INCORRECT assumption that US Authorities went on record that its inspectors carried out a physical check of PAF F-16s and found none missing. All this chatter is before Apr 06. Lara Seligman has supposedly spoken with Pentagon officials. Sadly for Lara and you all, on 06 April 2019, The Pentagon flatly denied that it had ever called for or conducted such an investigation. There are any number of sources and references. I will post a new section shortly.

• Moitraanak (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all don't personally attack on anyone, we are here to improve the page, second, Do you really, seriously think any Pentagon official gave interview to HT? Are they so free or they had so much free time to give the interview on that topic which even did not happen? Maybe even if they had, the lower rank official unnamed official would have did and even he would have give interview like "yeah whatever i don't know what you taking about maybe something going on in Asia, i don't know about it " that's it, literally that's it. Third, the Indian media is so delusional and mostly they interpret and make things so bias and in their favor, in HT report there is no mean barely anything literally nothing. If you see this this recent briefing briefing BY Pentagon officials, they even did not talk about India-Pakistan's f-16 story, literally not a single word. I don't know why i am even wasting my time here to explain why Indian media is doing propaganda for no reason just to hide their shame and embarrassment of their Abhinandon pilot's Capture and on other hand without focusing on 8 Aircraft which are already been crashed after that Pakistan's strike in India, they are more into F-16 which even did not talked in the briefing of Pentagon officials. I guess so got your point,huh? And Also the FP report was not only written by Lara only, it was also contributed by Pentagon's Official. I don't know the same Indian media which was saying and demanding US to investigate Pakistan and now when they did, now FP report which is from US has confirmed it that NO f-16 is missing, then what's the problems? IF they think that it is because of US don't want to spoil the image of f-16, then in 2015 f-16 was crashed, why f-16's image is still on top? Literally some Indian are saying Pakistan forced FP to write that report, for god sake.! Let good sense prevails. Best regards. Qasee1230«Talk» 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I do not agree with the rhetoric I agree with the point, Indian media is hardly an independent source for any claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

India never contradicted Pakistani claim of capturing an Indian pilot

The present version of article's section named "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot" says :

" Raveesh Kumar from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also stated that a Pakistani aircraft of the sortie was shot down by the Indian Air Force in the process.[16][60] India initially contradicted Pakistan's claim of capturing a pilot[90] but subsequently the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed[16] that an Indian pilot was missing in action after a MiG-21 Bison fighter plane was lost while engaging with Pakistani jets.[91]"

The following bbc link is used as reference to state that India initially contradicted Pakistani claim of capturing an Indian pilot : [12] . Following is the content fron this bbc link :

"After a dogfight in disputed Kashmir on Wednesday morning, India had initially said that all of its pilots were accounted for, contradicting Pakistani claims that they had captured a pilot. But Pakistan's information ministry then released - and later deleted - a video showing the pilot blindfolded and with blood on his face."

Now this is clear misreporting from BBC as India never contradicted Pakistani claim of capturing an Indian pilot in all its official briefings, statements or tweets on 27 Feb 2019. BBC reported this probably on the basis of electronic media reports, which can never be considered as India's statement.

So, I propose deletion of this line and my proposed version is as follows:

" Raveesh Kumar from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also stated that a Pakistani aircraft of the sortie was shot down by the Indian Air Force in the process.[16][60] The Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed[16] that an Indian pilot was missing in action after a MiG-21 Bison fighter plane was lost while engaging with Pakistani jets.[91]" -Yoonadue (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No it is not clear.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 14 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)

• I do not agree. Please read my brief way below. None of you, and I mean that in totally non-offensive generic terms, is aware of ground realities. Your estimate of the Balakot attack is totally out of kilter. You can't even begin to think of how many IAF aircraft got airborne in which timeframe for which target; how the standing F-16 CAP of at Kahuta-Chaklala-Islamabad (24/7) was drawn away by decoys. The AD Cdr, a 2-star General was hauled up for allowing not only the standing CAP to be diverted from Islamabad & Kahuta, but also the back-up. You will agree that this was a hasty decision. He should have got the back up F-16 to take over CAP duty. Or brought in JF-17s to Islamabad, at the very least. I am not sure of their SOP. 2 JF-17s ex Sargodha were routed post haste to Bahawalpur, 450 km South of Balakot! It takes a lot of time to configure and arm the F-16. The Indians had a free sky and after Balakot was hit hard, the Muzaffarabad and Chakoti packages were recalled without dropping anything. The F-16s were re-routed to Chaklala, just round the corner from Balakot, clocking max speeds, but the nearest they came was to the tied escorts of 2 x SU-30s, about 150 km. The 500 kg LGBs were not needed, or one would have seen the craters that the hoi polloi expect to see after a bombing run. Only 5 SPICE 2000 bombs were used, as the 6th aircraft was outside its launch window. 4 of the 5 bombs hit their designated targets spot on, one was possibly outside its CEP. Hence the 80% success factor that you might have seen in the media. The SPICE checks its data to the 'nth' degree and only if there is a match does it change trajectory to the near vertical to pierce through the roof of the target. It can be selected to hit a six-floor building and explode only on the fifth or the fourth, etc., on the way down. There are no craters, no blow-outs, just pieces of flesh as you would see in an abattoir. Do you seriously think the PM or the Army Chief would let the gullible masses see such gory sights? They would be lynched. Bagfuls of flesh were burnt using fuel called for in a 1-ton tanker well after removing all locals, including the cops. It took five weeks of hard work to repair most of the targets and another to let the fresh paint dry. The flags of USA, Israel and India that were painted on the steps were removed. Why do you think that the first visitors invited were shepherded in using the longest and most tiring route leaving them gasping for breath. They were prevented from asking questions or moving around by armed personnel, forget Pak media management. They were shooed out in 30 minutes and their reports say so clearly.
  If you have read all media inputs, Donald Trump was briefed by his Intel gang (CIA?) on 23 Feb that something big was about to happen in N India post Pulwama. He let that cat out! --Moitraanak (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What happened to the 6th bomb that missed the target? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
*The SPICE 2000 bomb will not be released by the weapons computer, which has overriding authority on bomb release until ALL listed criteria are met. This 6th bomb was carried back home.
I have added two paras to my brief below.--Moitraanak (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (My mistake: I should have said the 5th bomb that missed the target.)

But, I get the point that the bomb wouldn't have been exploded. If you can provide a reliable source for that, preferably from a WP:THIRDPARTY, we could probably use that information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree totally that the IAF was caught napping next morning. All 24 PAF pilots were on cockpit readiness from 0900, waiting for the AWACS to leave and then getting airborne to entice SU-30s into their backyard, the Paki Jallianwala Bagh. But the difference of financial might was more than obvious. The PAF cannot afford to fly much, but other Arab countries take in quite a few experienced PAF guys to teach their youngsters basic and advanced flying, including combat. Qatar, UAE, Saudi, Oman, Turkey & Jordan import some of them and rotate them as reqd, I suppose. Good as they are, some remain a trifle rusty. Four weeks of concentrated flying and they would be back at their best. The F-16 that was shot down hadn't even jettisoned its wing-tanks, for goodness sake! This is a primary rule of combat-Jettison unnecessary stores and select approriate power. Turn as dictated by the situation.
  
  

Haha I like your sarcasm but I was merely pointing out that Foreign Policy is not just some minor publication as you earlier seemed to perceive it. It's a major, award-winning American publication and hence why there shouldn't be a reason to not recognize it. ChopperHarley (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be "Indian" nationalist smoke and mirrors show but not "Hindu" nationalist. India has a healthy population other religions as well. Please do not use language like that. 71.245.186.73 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry? ChopperHarley (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To the IP: I know India's demography. I meant what I wrote. India's government is Hindu nationalist. That doesn't in the least imply that Pakistan is credible or saintly. Their reaction after the Pulwama tragedy was entirely off-handed, and they still haven't unequivocally and convincingly condemned terror groups based in Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ChopperHarley: Not minor, but not major either. We cannot editorialize. It would not be WP:NPOV. Just attribute it to FP, like Slatersteven said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If I have created any confusion, my apology, but I was just unclear as to why you was hesitating to quote [Foreign Policy]] properly and instead was choosing to quote FP with double-quotes, and also chose to wait for NYT, WP and Guardian to pick it up rather than recognize the original source. Don't get me wrong, I respect what you do and admire your efforts on Wikipedia but I'm a bit confused here that's all. Keep up the great work. =) ChopperHarley (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't quotes, but italics employed in any publication's name. Its one story, in one lesser-known magazine written by a little-known 29-year-old reporter. NY Times stories, I know from personal experience, are vetted very rigorously. If Jefferey Gettleman, the Delhi bureau chief of the NYT, and Pulitzer winner, were writing it, it would be another thing. That is my judgment, but there it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not going to count her age of 29 into question of her credibility now, surely. :D She's a highly experienced journalist in her field, she's worked on many aviation defence related articles in the past and not just with FP. Please don't judge her just because she's not working for NYT or hasn't won a Pulitzer prize haha. Come on, I'm sure you didn't mean it. As a Wikipedia moderator/contributer sure you know that you must maintain neutrality, impartiality. We are not here to judge writers of Verifiable and Reliable sources. :D ChopperHarley (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it would be good to treat the Foreign Policy article with some healthy skepticism as well. We need to more credible sources to verify these statements before saying them as facts. They may have their own vested interests in specific narratives, such as promoting American weapons: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/05/indias-dogfight-loss-could-be-a-win-for-u-s-weapons-makers-lockheed-boeing-pakistan/ 150.212.127.97 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect IP but as one good moderator - (@Guy Macon:) - recently roughly put it, it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide if each party, India or Pakistan, (or both) or a 3rd party source are lying and delete or doubt what they say on that basis. It is Wikipedia's job to accurately and neutrally report what each side says and then to accurately report what reliable 3rd party sources report. ChopperHarley (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ChopperHarley: Or if Pamela Constable the Afghanistan and Pakistan bureau chief of the Washington Post were writing it, it too would be another thing. I'm no longer recommending that we wait for the other newspapers to cite it on Wikipedia, only to mention FP by name in the sentence, which in any case you are. It does appear to be a credible story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Maria Abi-Habib of the NY Times writing in early March that India is yet to offer any proof it shot down an F-16 is an example of a reliable third part assessment of the f-16 claims. This FP story, however, is a different kind of story. It is not directly an assessment of the Indian and Pakistani claims, but a breaking story about US Pentagon officials' claims. It is those claims, I believe, that will need to be independently vetted. If Lara Seligman can get the officials to talk, I'm sure more established newspapers can too easily. If it remains a one-off story, then that is what it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Were those Maria Abi-Habib's tweets that you are referring to regarding F-16 proof? Can twitter tweets or social media posts be used as citation on Wikipedia? ChopperHarley (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter? I wasn't aware she was tweeting independently of what she writes in the NY Times. Maybe it wasn't her. In this fog of claims, it is hard to keep track. But my main point remains valid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes she tweeted too on F-16 maater and what US officials thought of the Feb 27 skirmish. For interest sake, could you link me the article Maria Abi-Habib wrote about "India is yet to offer any proof it shot down an F-16"? Thanks in advance. Regarding fog of war, yes I'm with you on that but now the dust has settled and we should start to see a clearer picture. ChopperHarley (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And oops, pardon me for the little typo :D ChopperHarley (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We have been generally avoiding the smoke and mirrors generated by "unnamed officials". I don't see why we will make an exception in this case. It is after all an American-made fighter plane that is being talked about. Neither is Lara Seligman a disinterested party [13]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The FP's report has been picked by various credible neutral sources/cites internationally and I guess just because of not naming the officials doesn't make it unreal. Obviously it is f-16 and US would really take it serious or take in favor of it because of nonexistent Indian evidence, only if India had provided credible evidence, US and Pakistan won't hesitate to accept it. We should be more neutral instead of putting our interests ahead. And also the source which you provided doesn't say Pakistan used f-16 nor it says there is evidence.And also in the source it said "The United States said Sunday that it was looking to confirm India’s claim, since Pakistan’s use of an F-16 to down an Indian fighter could potentially violate U.S. agreements. The U.S. State Department and Pentagon declined to comment on the record." Which she have now confirmed in new Article about f-16 where it says “It would be incredibly naive for us to believe that we could sell some type of equipment to Pakistan that they would not intend to use in a fight,” [14] so by this i don't think foreign policy is being on wrong side. Best Regards. Qasee1230 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This report says that the US spokesperson (unnamed) have refuted the FP report and said that they are unaware of any such audits. Again, no names given. https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/not-aware-pentagon-on-pak-f-16-count-after-feb-aerial-dogfight-with-iaf/story-Rw4gSknuuSBnMc2EyYe62H.html DoomDriven (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

IN the great scheme of things I would trust a neutral third party source to one from a belligerent. But until there is some kind of official announcement form the US I am not sure this is good enough for inclusion anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A US defense department or state department spokesperson, never speaks off the record in an official capacity. The Hindustan Times does not have the kind of access to the Pentagon, or the State department, that will to enable it to ferret out behind the scenes details. In more public scenarios, an Indian correspondent is given a few seconds at the end of an hour-long press briefing, that is, if he is lucky. In response to the Indian reporter's question, the press secretary says something in American idiomatic double speak, but making it plenty obvious that he has no interest in answering the question. The Indian reporter usually misinterprets the words and writes whatever he wants for his Indian audience. See the very end of this recent briefing, and I mean the very end. The Foreign Policy story, on the other hand, is not only written by a American journalist with a specialty in defense matters, the Pentagon correspondent for FP. It is moreover given more heft by the remarks of the MIT political science professor, Vipin Narang, which accompanies it. Narang would have found the story credible in order to be interviewed for it, and, especially, in order to voice agreement with the story's main claim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Having just read the Foreign Policy story by Lara Seligman for the second time, and having noted Narang's words: "As details come out, it looks worse and worse for the Indians,” Narang said. “It looks increasingly like India failed to impose significant costs on Pakistan, but lost a plane and a helicopter of its own in the process." It is very unlikely that an MIT political science professor would have said those words without being aware of the main claims of the story he was being interviewed for. I am now leaning to: including the FP story in his article in a one sentence summary, but obviously not the HT story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

I think that this entire section will have to be scrapped because it based on the INCORRECT assumption that US Authorities went on record that its inspectors carried out a physical check of PAF F-16s and found none missing. All this chatter is before Apr 06. Lara Seligman has supposedly spoken with Pentagon officials. Sadly for Lara and you all, on 06 April 2019, The Pentagon flatly denied that it had ever called for or conducted such an investigation. There are any number of sources and references. I will post a new section shortly.

• Moitraanak (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all don't personally attack on anyone, we are here to improve the page, second, Do you really, seriously think any Pentagon official gave interview to HT? Are they so free or they had so much free time to give the interview on that topic which even did not happen? Maybe even if they had, the lower rank official unnamed official would have did and even he would have give interview like "yeah whatever i don't know what you taking about maybe something going on in Asia, i don't know about it " that's it, literally that's it. Third, the Indian media is so delusional and mostly they interpret and make things so bias and in their favor, in HT report there is no mean barely anything literally nothing. If you see this this recent briefing briefing BY Pentagon officials, they even did not talk about India-Pakistan's f-16 story, literally not a single word. I don't know why i am even wasting my time here to explain why Indian media is doing propaganda for no reason just to hide their shame and embarrassment of their Abhinandon pilot's Capture and on other hand without focusing on 8 Aircraft which are already been crashed after that Pakistan's strike in India, they are more into F-16 which even did not talked in the briefing of Pentagon officials. I guess so got your point,huh? And Also the FP report was not only written by Lara only, it was also contributed by Pentagon's Official. I don't know the same Indian media which was saying and demanding US to investigate Pakistan and now when they did, now FP report which is from US has confirmed it that NO f-16 is missing, then what's the problems? IF they think that it is because of US don't want to spoil the image of f-16, then in 2015 f-16 was crashed, why f-16's image is still on top? Literally some Indian are saying Pakistan forced FP to write that report, for god sake.! Let good sense prevails. Best regards. Qasee1230«Talk» 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I do not agree with the rhetoric I agree with the point, Indian media is hardly an independent source for any claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

So would anyone take this report seriously to add in page or do we need more info next? qa (k) 00:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we can say that something to the tune of "FP magazine has claimed...", not sure if it violates undue though, as its hardly cast iron.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an analysis article in the Washington Post:

Excerpts from: Washington Post, April 17, 2019. Did India shoot down a Pakistani F-16 in February? This just became a big deal. By Sameer Lalwani and Emily Tallo

The controversy flared up when a Foreign Policy article stated that the Pentagon had accounted for all of Pakistan’s F-16 jets. This report, based on anonymous statements by two U.S. Defense Department officials, contradicted the Indian air force’s (IAF) narrative of the dogfight. The IAF claims an Indian pilot shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter plane before a Pakistani missile took down his own third-generation MiG-21 warplane. The IAF responded last week by releasing “irrefutable” evidence — including electronic signatures and radio transcripts — that Pakistan lost a fighter jet during the February aerial combat. A number of U.S. and Indian defense analysts called the evidence circumstantial. Indian media reported that a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said he was unaware of any investigation. The Pentagon, like the State Department, has yet to issue a public statement on the F-16 count, but there have been no counter-leaks contradicting the Foreign Policy report. ... But these latest details about the India-Pakistan air battles threaten to discredit the BJP narrative and undermine its electoral prospects. Open-source satellite imagery suggests India did not hit any targets of consequence in the airstrikes it conducted after the terrorist attack on the paramilitaries. Additionally, reporting indicates that during the Feb. 27 air battle, friendly fire from an air-defense missile brought down an Indian military helicopter, killing six military personnel. ... Any news that may tarnish perceptions of Indian military superiority over Pakistan isn’t good news for a government that pledged to improve India’s hard-power capabilities and punish Pakistan for its alleged support of terrorism. The research suggests material advantages — planes, weapons — are no guarantee of military effectiveness. This will no doubt raise questions both inside and outside of India about the IAF’s conventional advantage if it is unable punish a weaker adversary to reestablish deterrence. ... Will there be fallout for the Indian military? Its competence and professionalism could also be called into questioned if it turns out military leaders knowingly defended an inaccurate position — particularly a partisan one that bolstered the BJP’s electoral narrative. ... But the United States also may have an interest in seeing India become more aware of the risks of escalation in conflicts with Pakistan — as well as shortfalls in military capabilities that leave India lagging far behind China. Military analysts point to India’s notoriously lethargic procurement process, meager defense budgets, Modi’s defense indigenization campaign and dysfunctional civil-military relations as reasons for the gap between Indian military intentions and capabilities. These criticisms include deficits in India’s air power, ammunition and “jointness” — the capability of services within the Indian military to cooperate. If the Indian government emerges sobered by the latest conflict, it might be able to surmount bureaucratic hurdles and organizational routines that constrain military adaptation, an important ingredient to seriously balancing China. ...

Given that the Foreign Policy story has tacit support from an MIT professor specializing in deterrence, Vipin Narang, who was interviewed for the story; that New York Times carried the Reuters report of the story (they don't carry a Reuters report if they assess it to be false news, for they are still putting their stamp on it); and that now WaPo has an analysis broadly supporting the notion that no credible report has appeared which contradicts the FP story, I believe it is probably credible. We can say,

"India has claimed that one Pakistani F-16 warplane was shot down in the dogfights of February 27. On April 4, 2019, Foreign Policy magazine, citing unnamed senior Pentagon Officials, reported that a physical count of Pakistan's F-16s was conducted by the US Defense Department and none were found missing."

No "however," "but," and other qualifiers are needed. It can be cited to a) the FP story, (b) the New York Times/Reuters story, (c) the TIME/Bloomberg story, and (d) this Washington Post story. The Indian counter response, is already covered, and dismissed, in the WaPo story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References
References

@Moitraanak: Please read Wikipedia talk page guidelines, in particular: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Wikipedia is edited in accordance with certain principles and guidelines. We can use only reliable sources, and in the case of India-Pakistan conflict, preferably third-party sources. If you feel strongly about this subject, contribute to a defense-related magazine. Wikipedia is not the platform for you. I am not removing your text, only collapsing it, closing further discussion that implicitly promotes its original research, and serving a warning that to persist in adding such musings to a Wikipedia talk page is to veer toward disruptive editing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Collaspsing per WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moitraanak (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I disagree. You don't have any idea of the volume of data connected with this operation. What you say is unfounded and untenable. I have appended my remarks twice as a fresh page, but somebody is removing my work. I have spent a lot of time on the ‘magazine’ Foreign Policy and Lara Seligman. One video quotes her claims. Which US officials have told FP that Pakistan had invited them to count all their F16s and they found no F16s missing? Name one. I have also spoken with Wg Cdr A Varthaman’s wingman in depth, seen the excitement in his eyes as he narrated his first experience of armed combat; what he told me is inadmissible as it is hearsay till the IAF releases details post elections. The fact remains that I know what happened on Feb 26 because the Sqn I commanded took part, and of events on that fateful morning from Varthaman’s wingman. For the factually inclined, the Mig-21 Bison shot down an F-16 as though by default, as it presented itself in a lazy turn at 12 o’clock as target practice. In his excitement at seeing an F-16 turning blind and dead ahead, Varthaman disobeyed orders to break off and went on to shoot down that F-16. His wingman was trailing him by quite a distance. My problem here is that I am talking tactics and strategy in Air Combat, which is beyond the ken of most civilians. For example, if under threat, the safest place to be in is at 12 o’clock ahead of that threat in the same direction, and as low and fast as possible. The MiG-21/Mirage 2000 cannot be caught if at 45 m (150’) and 1300 kph (700 kts) just 4 km in front of the enemy in chase. I know that self-made videos are not considered verifiable in circumstances such as these, though exceptions may be made in exceptional cases with loads of circumstantial evidence. And I believe there is enough. The ensuing video is easy enough to understand and certain portions carry translations in English. Locals relate in Urdu on BBC Hindi how they were kicked off the site, 60 beds cleared and reserved in the nearest hospital. 10 ambulances were seen. An area of 1sq km was cordoned off for six weeks. Why so? Army trucks were seen moving in and out. Repair work? Seems pellucid to me! Certain tweets are shown, which can be fabricated, I admit. I’ll leave it at that. The US Journal, Macro Viewpoints, out of Wharton, PA, has published a comprehensive article on the Balakot Strike of 26 Feb 2019 and its aftermath, titled “Deep State at Work Again in US Journalism? – Anti-Modi & Anti-Indian Air Force.” All references bar one are lengthy but all-inclusive, aimed at demystifying the Indo-Pak skirmishes of February 2019 and providing conclusive proof. The article also discusses the inputs of Lara Seligman for the magazine Foreign Policy. Evan Williams’ A Medium Corporation also hosts two articles on the same operational subjects. Do please click on the links in the paper. The focal point of the Indian claim of one F-16 shot down is adduced in brief. What better evidence can you have than the brother of Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed’s leader Maulana Masood Azhar, Maulana Ammar, describing first hand which targets were hit by the Indian Mirage 2000H and threatening India that it has initiated this jihad by attacking its ‘Markaz’(centre) and he will retaliate. Later, a Pak Army officer is seen consoling a victim’s kin, saying that they were not mere mortals who died, but Jihadi Shaheeds, and the 200 or more valiant jihadis were not killed, but summoned by Allah, the Almighty and they should consider it a privilege. This video in Urdu was uploaded by a Pakistani organisation on March 08, 2019. The Indian Sigint agency, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which was monitoring chatter from some 300 mobile phones from that training centre, reported that all cell phones went silent for good. The Pakistani leadership had to react quickly, but in the hysteria of war-like fog, their Director-General of Inter-Services Public Relations, Major General Asif Ghafoor made several conflicting statements, one here, claiming two pilots down, one injured and hospitalised and the other in custody. So did their Prime Minister, Imran Khan. Eyewitnesses have seen three parachutes, two fairly close to each other and the third some 7-8 km away about 40-50 seconds later. Videos also show two aircraft and three chutes, but may not pass scrutiny as verifiable references. Villagers at the site say that they saw two aircraft coming down, with one leaving a smoke trail. They also saw two parachutes and captured both pilots. One was Varthaman; who was the second, who was lynched and ultimately taken to the Combined Military Hospital, where he died? The IAF is presently content to claim that an F-16 was shot down by a Bison. Pakistan had acquired F-16A/B aircraft from Jordan and the C/D from the USA, ostensibly to deal with issues of terrorism, but has historically used all such munitions against India, like the F-16s on Feb 27. It is imperative that they not use the F-16s in an offensive mode against India, unless in a state of war. The Feb 27 merge has placed them in an awkward spot, as India claims that there is physical and electronic evidence of their offensive operation. Helen Regan from CNN reported on Mar 05, 2019 that US is looking into reports Pakistan violated arms agreement in Kashmir after India presented the US physical and other proof that US weapons were used on Feb 27, 2019. The Pakistani tall claim/blatant lie that the AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM belonged to Taiwan was caustically denied by Taiwan immediately and in no uncertain terms. Lockheed Martin was not overly pleased either and also stated that, contrary to Pakistani media claims, it was not suing India for falsely stating that an F-16 was shot down by a MiG-21 Bison, challenging one Danyal Gilani for tweeting false information that was then published as fact by the Pakistani media machine. Gilani was quick to withdraw his tweet with an apology. Standard propaganda theory-let a hundred people quote a lie repeatedly and it will become a truth. Nothing unusual here, as Indians have seen through their now routine subterfuge and just shrug it off. Pakistan then claimed that they had captured an Israeli pilot. Humour in uniform indeed. A US Embassy spokesman stated that they were aware of reports that Pakistani was violating its deal with the US in using arms against India and were looking into it. Feb 27, 2019: The Feb 27 operation was a brilliantly conceived PAF plan and in all probability, rehearsed often-perhaps in smaller numbers. They knew the exact time lag between one IAF AWACS taking over from the other and timed their operation to the minute. All aircraft had been prepared overnight and were ready to go. As seen in the sitrep, they put up a 24-ac package of 8 Mirage III/Vs, 8JF-17s and 8 F-16s. They executed the Pincer Decoy/Bait stratagem neatly and managed to draw out two SU-30MKIs into a kill zone for twin-layered F-16s in groups of 4 each that were to use Snap-down tactics, as the PAF Mirages turned back. 4-5 AMRAAMS were fired by the F-16s, but were evaded by the SU-30s. The PAF pilots were aware that the SU-30s flying at a relatively low level would not be able to launch a BVRAAM Snap-up at distant targets flying at much higher altitudes, whereas they could maximise the 25-30,000’ advantage they held. They knew about the BVRs on the SU-30, and utilised this knowledge to their benefit. The one aircraft that worried them was the upgraded Mirage 2000I, with BVRAAM capabilities unknown to them and, therefore, deployed 4 x JF17s to lure them away. All their tactics worked perfectly, but they had not given the Bison much credibility. This led to the loss of an F-16 to a MiG-21, a global first and unacceptable in the small egotistical world of the fighter pilot, given the numerical (3:1) and tactical advantage they enjoyed to start with. 8 IAF aircraft (2 x SU-30MKI+2 x Mirage 2000I+ 4 x MiG-21 Bison) pushed back a 24 PAF aircraft package (8 x F-16 +8 x JF17+ 8 x Mirage III/V) and the IAF claimed a huge victory with one F-16 down vs one Bison lost and zero ground damage. The PAF omitted study of the debriefs of the USAF v IAF exercises, viz., Cope India 04 & 05, a serious lapse. When the entire PAF package seemed to be heading for Srinagar/Avantipora, 4 Bisons were scrambled. Varthaman was quickest off and used the hills intelligently to screen himself. He was under the IAF’s Integrated Air Command & Control System’s (IACCS) cover and informed to commence a climb, during which time he saw an F-16 dead ahead turning lazily his way. He used his helmet-mounted designator to lock his R-73 missile to the F-16 and launched well within kill range. His call on R/T of a missile launch was monitored by the AWACS. Apparently the PAF AEW&C aircraft then saw the MiG-21 coming in and warned the F-16, which then turned hard-but it was too late. 7-8 seconds and he vanished from the radar screens of the AWACS and the IACCS, a victim of circumstance. The Bison was travelling so fast that his radius of turn was very large and he was shot down some 45 seconds later by another F-16, probably the lost F-16’s wingman. Varthaman had actually been ordered to break off, but he disregarded the order to shoot down the F-16. He ejected safely, but inside POK, and was captured by the locals. He fell some 7-8 km away from the other/others. This matches the speed/time quantum. The other three Bisons turned away and returned to base. 43 days after the Balakot attacks, select journalists were invited to see Balakot for themselves. After a 90 minute uphill trek, none of them were given free access to the inmates of a newly opened primary school (madrassa), nor could they wander about. Doha-based Al Jazeera simply said it was "unable to visit the site of the school". British Reuters had more information: "...soldiers prevented reporters from going into the compound". The timing of the visit immediately took a political angle and was construed as Pakistani interference in the forthcoming Indian elections. Ex Cope India 04. In the IAF-USAF Ex Cope India 04, the MiG-21 Bison had sprung a nasty bolt from the blue on the USAF F-15s. The positives of the MiG-21 such as small size, low radar signature, instantaneous turn rate and “jackrabbit acceleration" proved to be crucial factors. Its new helmet mounted sight and high-off-boresight launch capable R-73 air-to-air missiles turned the MiG-21 into a “Great Equaliser” in the WVR (within visual range) combat arena The USAF F-16s also faced similar problems. Ex Cope India 04 showed an unbelievable 9:1 kill ratio in favour of India. The PAF may have made the same mistake as the USAF, and underestimated the IAF response, that too, without an AWACS or AEW&C. After Cope India 04, when asked about the capabilities of IAF pilots, Col Greg Newbech, USAF Team Leader said: “What we’ve seen in the last two weeks is, the IAF can stand toe-to-toe with best AF in the world. I pity the pilot who has to face the IAF and chances the day to underestimate him; because he won’t be going home.”

This wall of text looks to contain a lot of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Collaspsing per WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moitraanak (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC) @fowler&fowler The three main refs take a full day to read and understand. There is no OR, I don't have the time. Air Marshal (Ret'd) Varthaman, father of Wg Cdr A Varthaman who shot down an F-16 and was shot down himself was my pupil as a Flt Lt in the IAF Flying Instructor's School in 1983. That should put my age and your advice in the right perspective. I have been reading Wikipedia since 2003, in the pay per log-on era of the net. Now for some constructive data: SAMAA TV is a Pakistani news and entertainment television network. They uploaded a video titled “Exclusive: Watch two Indian fighter jets get shot down by the Pakistan Air Force” on February 27, 2019. They have not only proved that the PAF lost an F-16 aircraft, but also that it was a 2-seater, an F-16B/D. The two parachutes from the F-16B/D can clearly be seen with their extractor drogue chutes. The cameraman repeatedly shushes the talker, who keeps saying, "watch the aircraft." Details of the Aces II ejection seat and parachute assembly that are fitted on all F-16s globally are accessible online. If the time taken for the aircraft to fall can be taken as T=0 four seconds after the bang, the fall time is ~32 seconds. That puts the aircraft at ~5000 mtrs above ground, or ~16,400 feet. That roughly matches the description given. An elderly (80 years) Pakistani man respectfully called ‘babaji’ Mohd Yaseem is interviewed by a Pakistani videographer in POK. The gist of his tale is: “I saw 3 pIlots come down in 3 umbrella-like parachutes. One tried to run away but we caught him. The blood on my shirt is that of the Indian pilot. He was armed with a pistol and fired into the sky.” Yaseem is pointedly asked-“how many parachutes, how many men?” He repeats -“three parachutes, three pilots” and reiterates “Ji, Ji, teen aadmi=Yes, yes, three men.” He is unable to answer a rapid fire question, “Was he injured?” When asked where they were standing, he says that the place is called Horran Kotla (Horran Village). That's where Wg Cdr A Varthaman landed after ejection. He was mistaken to be a Sikh, because he was wearing a regulation white anti-sweat skullcap under his helmet and had a moustache. This video is titled “PAF F-16 destroyed by IAF MiG-21: 27 Feb 2019 eyewitness.” There are many such videos, but less convincing than this one.--Moitraanak (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:v, we do not get to evaluate what a source says, and an editors (claimed) expertise is irrelevant. Also

youtude videos not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Moitraanak: I've closed the discussion of your latest musings as well. Please read the ArbCom Sanctions alert warning I've posted on your talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

After 43 days, Pakistana allows journalist to visit the site

https://www.news18.com/amp/news/world/pakistan-takes-media-to-balakot-air-strike-site-curtails-interactions-2096733.html DoomDriven (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This BBC report from yesterday is probably more reliable. The building seems intact. The journalists however could only talk to the students briefly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Could we add this in Balakot Page or This page? If so i would suggest be like this

"Pakistan on April 10 facilitated a visit of a group of ambassadors, defence attachés and international journalists to the site of Indian airstrike in Balakot, in which India claimed it had killed around 300 terrorists. The delegation, which visited impact site of February 26 Indian air violation near Jabba included international journalists mostly based in India. DG ISPR Asif Ghafoor briefed the group about details of the event, while negating the repeated Indian claims with ground realities. The visitors were shown bomb craters of denied Indian air strike attempt in barren open spaces with no loss to life or infrastructure. The group also visited a nearby madrassa which India claimed it had struck and killed scores of terrorists. The visitors freely interacted with the student children and teachers and saw for themselves that the madrassa stood on ground untouched with innocent local children getting education there, Visitors didn't see any signs that there had been significant building work to either clear structures or erect new ones. DG ISPR Asif Ghafoor told the madrassa did "no harm" and that Indian allegations that it was a terror training camp had "no truth," visitors agreed with him but they had doubt whether that madrassa was used by the JeM or not. However, he denied that the madrasa had recently been used by JeM but said maybe long time ago"??[15]Qasee1230«Talk» 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Which of these buildings is the "madrasa" the journalists were taken to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They were taken to the same exact spot where India said they bombed and also they were allowed to talk with anyone, even the some of the journalists from the same panel were taken on the same spot on 29th March, which we have already added. The DGISPR also has uploaded the video of this visit on his twitter account.Qaseev!@ (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Pamela Constable, the Pakistan and Afghanistan bureau chief of the Washington Post, was also in this group and has written a piece today in the Post. However, the story is only partly is about the bombing. There are two pictures that she took. Still, she is a superb journalist, which means that the Pakistanis must have felt confident enough about their version of events to have invited her. The mystery deepens. I'm leaning toward thinking that the Indians did miss the seminary. But why the Pakistanis took so long is the question that hasn't been satisfactorily answered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

which one? Qaseev!@ (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: An Al Jazeera journalist, who was also invited, has posted a picture of the bus stop for Jabah village, with sign pointing to the left, "Madrasa Taleem al Quran." I asked someone with rudimentary knowledge of Persian (same as Urdu script) to read it, and they made out, "Balakot road, Jabah, Manserah" below the seminary's name. That seems to jibe with your description in some source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Finally Martin Howell, the Delhi bureau chief of Reuters, was also invited. His piece see here too says that the building did not show signs of any significant rebuilding, consistent with any kind of missile attack, neither did the surrounding foliage. But he too is perplexed by Pakistan took so long to arrange the visit. Since Reuters were turned away from visiting the site in the immediate aftermath, they must know that it was the same site. It is possible it was a Jaish training camp a number of years ago, but although closed, still had substantial evidence, which needed to be carted away etc. But it seems to be old news now, except in India and (to a lesser extent in) Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that none of the journalist reports show any remote connection to the satellite images analysed by Nathan Ruser and others. They don't even give us enough information to tell which if the various buildings in the images they were taken to. Al Jazeera's crater picture (which is an old picture recycled) doesn't match any of Nathan Ruser's strike locations either. All I see is more smoke and mirrors.

The sign of Taleem al-Quran published by Al Jazeera is also an old recycled picture. The sign was taken down soon after the air strike and doesn't exist any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:) @Kautilya3: I'm aware that the sign was removed a while ago. The Al Jazeera article itself says that. All I meant was that the road leading up to the site, i.e. a left turn on the Manserah Balakot road (from your earlier source) jibes with the old picture of the bus stop. The visiting group at least made the left turn at the correct spot. The facility they were taken to is the one in the Nathan Ruser picture that has a large (approx 100 m x 50 m, as observed from the scale below) flat playing/gathering area (see here) which shows more clearly in the zoom at the top left. Only one building has the large flat area of that approximate dimension in Ruser's picture. The same picture was taken by the Martin Howell of Reuters from the ground level, showing the same slate-like roof (See slide show at the bottom here). It too has approximately the same dimensions. I think you might bey underestimating the general observation acumen of some of these journalists. They would have known where they were being taken, especially the Reuters people who've been there a few times already, and who hosted Ruser's first pictures. All it takes is an iPhone with GPS, not to mention more accurate GPS devices. There were military attaches from different embassies. I know Pamela Constable. I doubt that she would not have done here homework. My own view is that the Indians missed. Whether or not they did it deliberately is not clear. However, if it was deliberate, it does not speak well for India's armed forces, who have gone along with the government's propaganda. As for Pakistan, I suspect, as I've said above, they must have had some smoking gun that implicated the building earlier with an active Jaish presence, and that it probably took that long to get rid of the tell-tale signs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right. I missed the slide show. Since that is settled, I am ok to put this into the article, based on Reuters story and perhaps Washington Post as well (which I am yet to look at). Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the Taleem ul-Quran sign, the first image in this Al Jazeera article shows the environs better. The green top building is supposedly called the "Blue Pine hotel". It is marked on Google Maps as "Old Danish Hotel new Blu Pine". It is at the right location.

I won't write off the Indian military yet. They have said that 80% of their bombs have hit the target. If the large building was a hall (as Francesca Marino says), it might not have been such an important target. But it is certainly the most visible target. And it is bad publicity for them to have missed it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it be put into the article. Just trying to understand. I think we'd need something more definitive. The Firstpost story is dated March 11. This visit was arranged on April 10. Does that mean two visits were arranged, one in March, another in April? Another thing I don't understand are the 12 Mirages. The Pakistanis say it was one plane. Twelve would be a risky thing, as it would increase the risk of being shot down. The mystery deepens. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This report gives some information about the visit arranged in early March.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the 12 Mirages figure. It was all sourced to "unnamed sources". Even if there were 12 planes, some of them would have carried the munitions meant for Balakot and the others would have been for support of various kinds. I am also not confident that the Line of Control was crossed. India needed to do it quietly, and no losses were acceptable. Ground-based SAMs would have been a bigger threat than an air battle at that time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

[[16]] It is been picked by another neutral source from Australia, which backed the Pakistan claims in this standoff of killing of 300+ terrorist. In this report it stated "One thing is clear: India's claim that it destroyed a militant training camp and killed more than 300 extremists cannot be backed up by the evidence." well the point is that in list of visitors who visited the cite with Pakistan army included the visitors from ABC too and they have now reported fully on it. Any remarks on it? Qa (tk) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

And also i think this report really significantly uphold the Pakistani claims, there are crucial lines too as ""Now these madrasas have a history linked to the first Afghan War [against the then Soviet Union], but Pakistan for years and years now, since the [terrorist] organisations have been proscribed, these madrasas are practically not being run by them," he said.

There are over 30,000 madrasas in Pakistan, and senior military officials told the ABC intelligence suggests that only between 100-200 have extremist links."" Qa (tk) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC) And the author of this article is based in New Delhi.[[17]] Qa (tk) 23:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think we have enough to add something to both this page and the 2019 Balakot airstrike page. I will propose some text here a little later, but it will invovle both the satellite image analysis by independent sources (Planet Labs, European Space Imaging, and Australian The Strategist, and the visit to Balakot as reported in Reuters (and reproduced in the New York Times), the BBC, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The bottom line is that the Indians have not produced anything credible that counters these reports. Their responses cannot go in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure Qa (tk) 16:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: also here shouldn't we add the visit claims of Pakistan (in either way by splitting or adding in between the satellite claims) now on either of page or would we be waiting for another claims. Just curious to know now as we had finished talking on it. Qa (tk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at the sources. Please give me 12 hours. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

break

@Qasee1230: @Slatersteven: @Kautilya3: OK, I've put together the most accurate statements for: (a) the open source satellite imaging, (b) the trip for journalists arranged by the Pakistani government, and (c) the Foreign Policy" F-16 story. I believe they can go into both this page and the 2019 Balakot airstrike page.

We can say,

"Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the Atlantic Council's Digital

Forensics Laboratory, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, European Space Imaging, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance in the airstrikes.

On April 10, 2019, some international journalists, who were taken to the site in a tightly controlled trip arranged by Pakistani government, found the largest building of the site to show no evidence of damage or recent rebuilding.

India has claimed that one Pakistani F-16 warplane was shot down in the dogfights of February 27. On April 4, 2019, Foreign Policy magazine, citing unnamed senior Pentagon Officials, reported that a physical count of Pakistan's F-16s was conducted by the US Defense Department and none were found missing."

These are fairly credible and neutral citations. Not including them means that Wikipedia in some sense becomes complicit in the Indian government's version that a strike took place, which by implication, that is, by the very use of the word "airstrike,means that it struck some target of value (strategically). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, thanks these are good statements to include anywhere. One clarification needed is to make clear that we are talking about the "Jaba top" site. The Indian government hasn't revealed what site was targeted, and we are only going by what Pakistan has announced. Both the countries being nuclear powers, they have deescalation strategies in place, and we won't know the truth until years later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The last part I am not all that happy with, it is anonymous, and has been contradicted by other anonymous claims, So until that is cleared up I would rather it was left out.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So for "2019 Balakot Airstrike" should we need to remove all the previous stuff which is under satellite assessment? I would rather use "On April 10, 2019, some international journalists, who were taken to the site in a tightly controlled trip arranged by Pakistani government, found the largest building of the site to show no evidence of damage or recent rebuilding." and would keep all the satellite assessment. It should be added Before satellite assessment, where it has already been stated that journalists visited the cite on 29th March. We could remove the 29th march tour or add under it.q (t) 15:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC). For this page it is accurate version of you and i agreed with your version to be added in this Page. q (t) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

To all: what I have written is meant for the leads of the two articles, this one's, and of the 2019 Balakot airstrike's. The main bodies of both articles are in a mess, in which the Indian claims usually precede, and then outnumber the third-party (i.e. Western journalists') or Pakistani by 4 to 1. Rewriting the main body, which will involve removing much of it, will take longer. @Kautilya3: We can't second guess the reliable sources which have said "Open-source satellite imagery suggests India did not hit any targets of consequence in the airstrikes it conducted after the terrorist attack on the paramilitaries." (Washington Post, April 17, 2019). We have paraphrased it closely: "has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance in the airstrike." As for "Balakot," everything about it, even the fact of the existence of the airstrike that in common parlance carries its name, is supported only by Pakistan- or satellite supplied data. All third-party accounts (NY Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Independent, BBC, ABC (Australian), Irish Times, Financial Times, TIME, Reuters, Agence France Presse) have interpreted "Balakot" to be the site shown in the satellite imagery. We cannot ourselves disambiguate Balakot town and Jaba village, especially when we don't mention either in the sentence. @Slatersteven: The main body of this article has several paragraphs about the f-16. We have a situation in which "anonymous" and "official" carry little distinction in the context of the belligerents, as neither party is reliable. The third-party reporting has only mentioned the FP story, not the "irrefutable evidence" of the Indian response, except in the WaPo analysis, which discounts it as "circumstantial" and unsupported by "counter leaks" from the Pentagon. I have included the two sentences as a neutral summary of what is the article body. I am happy to not add it, but then we will need to rid the main body of its f-16 content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, I agree Indian claims are usually preceding. Rewriting the mess in much understandable paras would be good on all claims I.e, Indian, Pakistani and neutral(I.e, international plus western'). And also my stance is still valid for Balakot Page, just to add this new tour under 29th March's(or add instead by removing 29th March's tour). And the whole version of you can be added in this page n'i have no issues with it.q (t) 20:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No issue with removing the unsubstatiated claim about the loss of a single aircraft. We are not here to peddle either sides propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have removed all mention of f-16s from the main body. Consequently, there won't be mention of the f-16 in the lead either. @Kautilya3: Apologies, I did not realize that we say "in the vicinity of the town of Balakot" in the lead. So, I'm happy to mention Jaba village. @Qasee1230: I don't know what the 29th March tour is. In any case, it is not in the leads of either article. If it is mentioned in the main body, we can fix it later. So, I will now be putting the following text in the leads of the two articles: this one, and the 2019 Balakot airstrike:

"Analysis of open-source satellite imagery by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Laboratory, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, European Space Imaging, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has concluded that India did not hit any targets of significance in its airstrikes on the Jaba hilltop site in the vicinity of Balakot. On April 10, 2019, some international journalists, who were taken to the Jaba hilltop in a tightly controlled trip arranged by Pakistani government, found the largest building of the site to show no evidence of damage or recent rebuilding.

Best regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, F&f. I am happy with this version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input. For obvious reasons, I have scratched three words in the version that is going in. See the text above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am happy too with your version. But what about f-16's version? . (.) 02:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Sushma Swaraj

Sushma Srawaj has claimed that no soldier and no civilian got killed in airstrike. IT'S HUGE! [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29] Qasee1230 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Clearly JeM terrorists do not fall under "soldiers" or "civilians". 117.198.116.6 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

'Nothing new here" wow!. and all civilians and soldiers are not JeM terrorists, any proof by india where and which and how many they killed, obviously nothing!, So these people who were mentioned are being the civilians. best regards. Qasee1230 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement from the Sushma Swaraj really bends down to the Pakistani claims right now as India contently failed to provide any proof whatsoever, and this statement at that time has reflected that they have no idea that how many soldiers,civilians and terrorists were there, if they can't even give proof of terrorists casualties then how come they get to know who they targeted and how come they know they did not target soldiers and civilians? really funny Qasee1230 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I could not understand a single word of your first reply. Let me break down her statement for you. She claims that the airstrikes were carried out in such a way that no Pakistani civilian or soldier was hit. It seems they targeted terrorist camps that were in non-civilian areas. You should have been able to comprehend this yourself considering the number of links you have posted for this non-story. Again these are claims and not "proofs", which is why I said "nothing new here" in response to your "IT'S HUGE!" sensationalism. 117.198.116.6 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all i don't really care much what they say now without a single evidence they had made things hyped just to win the voter cast in elections, second, we had really talked on it much and a lot but yet if someone coming up and defending there things then i would rather consider that dude a fool(not anyone specifically), without any credible evidence you can't do anything, third, now let me explain you little bit what i just said, Question is, does she knows how many civilians and soldiers were there? And how come she is so clearly mentioning that they killed only terrorists meanwhile, Amit Shah had said they killed 12 to 20 soldiers, fourth, even if take that stance they knew the amount of soldiers and civilians but the second question is how come Sushma Swaraj be that sure to say this they only killed terrorists, are 1700++ people or 300++ people without any pic/e\image/video and proof were terrorists including the children???They are clearly contradicting within themselves! -- And now personally for you, show me any western, international and neutral cite which baked Indian claims but i can show you uncountable including this recent from Australia.[30] Best Regards.16 (tk) 08:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What does your lengthy bickering have anything to do with what I said? First you come and say "IT'S HUGE!" and now you are saying "i don't really care." I just responded to your incorrect understanding of the dozen links you posted and in return you are asking me for "proof" of casualties! I am not Sushma Swaraj in case you didn't know. Neither do I give a hoot about your Australian citation (I did not ask for it), nor do I have any interest in the rest of your nationalistic chest-thumping rant. 117.198.250.24 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess it was citizen, citizens generally included soldiers, militants and everyone who is living in particular country. I saw speech, she said "we did not kill citizens but militants" so militants are also citizens, she is contradicting with herself or it is just slip of tongue. And No, i wasn't chest thumping in blind nationalism, i was just telling how much the Pakistani claims have been backed by every neutral cite or international, which is obvious important to mention.16 (tk) 15:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Her statement did not use the term "civilians" but rather "citizens". "Citizens" would include militants too, and she would have been directly contradicting her own Foreign Secretary's official statement. Things are not clear at all at the moment. We need to wait for the dust to settle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Listening to the full speech [31], I notice that she hasn't denied that militants were targeted. The use of "citizens" was misleading and unfortunate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)s

I agree. Citizens would include soldiers for sure, it may or may not include "militants," if the implication is that they are random, stateless, mercenaries, or that they are so evil as to not be worthy of the term "citizen." If this was not a off-the-cuff remark, i.e. was deliberate, then all it means is, "We did not kill any innocent Pakistanis." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the rest, see my three formulations two sections above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, the sum total of the news in the international media, six weeks later, does not good for the Indians. Worse, it does not look good for India's air force. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it looks quite good for the Indian air force. They didn't shoot down the intruding air planes using BVR's, but rather engaged in a good old, risky, dogfight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

An error in translation apparently [32]. It doesn't look like Hindi has coined a term for "civilian". The same term as "citizen" (nagarik) is used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for more input. Beside the fact she meant to say that only militants were killed but still "nagarik" also includes Militants too because militants don't have that special status in any field likewise in Armed forces or in Government, they are also common or local people among all local citizens. . (.) 05:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually they do, that even in international law (for example unlawful combatants).Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Imran Khan roots for Modi

Suhasini Haidar can see what the New York Times and Washington Post can't. [33] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The relevance of this is?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever has happened (whose details we don't know) give prospect of peace to Imran Khan (who does know what has happened). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not know, this article could come from "The Hindu" which is "not" obviously known for doing propaganda(i am not saying this article was propaganda but they should have see the reaction also from Pakistan then it would have been easy to understand what really IK said) but whatsoever Pakistan's foreign minister has said Imran khan's words were taken out of context. [34] t (t) 23:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:Crystal and wp:synthesis, we cannot try and second guess what might happen based upon what media reports are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Refutation of : US Report contradicts Indian claims of any F16 shot down.

Collaspsing per WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
THE BALAKOT STRIKE AND THE SHOOTING DOWN OF A PAF F-16 BY AN IAF MiG-21 BISON I have spent a lot of time on the 'magazine' Foreign Policy and Lara Seligman. I have also spoken with Wg Cdr Varthaman’s wingman in depth, but what he told me is inadmissible as it is hearsay till the IAF releases just appropriate details post elections. The fact remains that I know what happened on Feb 26 and 27, 2109. For the factually inclined, the Mig-21 Bison shot down an F-16 by default, as it presented itself at 12 o’clock as target practice. In his excitement at seeing an F-16 dead ahead, Wg Cdr A Varthaman disobeyed orders to break off and shot down that F-16. Self-made videos are not considered verifiable in such circumstances, though exceptions may be made in exceptional cases with loads of circumstantial evidence. And I believe there is enough. They appear later. Let me leave it at that. The US Journal, Macro Viewpoints, out of Wharton, PA, has published a comprehensive article on the Balakot Strike of 26 Feb 2019 and its aftermath, titled “Deep State at Work Again in US Journalism? – Anti-Modi & Anti-Indian Air Force.” All references bar one are lengthy but all-inclusive, aimed at demystifying the Indo-Pak skirmishes of February 2019 and providing conclusive proof. The article also discusses the inputs of Lara Seligman for the magazine Foreign Policy. Evan Williams’ A Medium Corporation also hosts two articles on the same operational subjects. Do please click on the links in the paper. The focal point of the Indian claim of one F-16 shot down is adduced in brief. > The brother of Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed’s leader Maulana Masood Azhar, Maulana Ammar, describes first hand which targets were hit by the Indian Mirage 2000H and warns India that it has initiated this jihad by attacking its ‘Markaz’(centre) and he will retaliate. Later, a Pak Army officer is seen consoling a victim’s kin, saying that they were not mere mortals, but Jihadis, and the 200 or more valiant jihadis were not killed, but summoned by Allah, the Almighty and they should consider it a privilege. This video in Urdu was uploaded by a Pakistani organisation on March 08, 2019. The Indian Sigint agency, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which was monitoring chatter from some 300 mobile phones from that training centre, reported that all cell phones went silent for good on Feb 26. The Pakistani leadership had to react quickly, but in the hysteria of war-like fog, their Director-General of Inter-Services Public Relations, Major General Asif Ghafoor made several conflicting statements, one here, claiming two pilots down, one injured and hospitalised and the other in custody. So did their Prime Minister, Imran Khan. Eyewitnesses have seen three parachutes, two fairly close to each other and the third some 7-8 km away about 40-50 seconds later. The speed and time factors match up. Videos also show two aircraft and three chutes, but may not pass scrutiny as verifiable references. The IAF is presently content to claim that an F-16 was irrefutably shot down by a Bison. Pakistan had acquired F-16A/B aircraft from Jordan and the C/D from the USA, ostensibly to deal with issues of terrorism, but has historically used all such munitions against India, like the F-16s on Feb 27. It is imperative that they not use the F-16s in an offensive mode against India, unless in a state of war. The Feb 27 merge has placed them in an awkward spot, as India claims that there is physical and electronic evidence of their offensive operation. Helen Regan from CNN reported on Mar 05, 2019 that US is looking into reports Pakistan violated arms agreement in Kashmir after India presented the US physical and other proof that US weapons were used on Feb 27, 2019. The Pakistani tall claim/blatant lie that the AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM belonged to Taiwan was denied by Taiwan immediately in no uncertain terms. Lockheed Martin was not overly pleased either and also stated that, contrary to Pakistani media claims, it was not suing India for falsely stating that an F-16 was shot down by a MiG-21 Bison, challenging one Danyal Gilani for tweeting false information that was then published as fact by the Pakistani media machine. Gilani was quick to withdraw his tweet with an apology. Standard propaganda theory-let a hundred people quote a lie repeatedly and it will become a truth. Nothing unusual here, as Indians have seen through their now routine subterfuge and just shrug it off. A US Embassy spokesman stated that they were aware of reports that Pakistani was violating its deal with the US in using arms against India and were looking into it. Feb 27, 2019: The Feb 27 operation was a brilliantly conceived PAF plan and in all probability, rehearsed often-perhaps in smaller numbers. They knew the exact time lag between one IAF AWACS taking over from the other and timed their operation to the minute. All aircraft had been prepared overnight and were ready to go. As seen in the sitrep, they put up a 24-ac package of 8 Mirage III/Vs, 8JF-17s and 8 F-16s. They executed the Pincer Decoy/Bait stratagem neatly and managed to draw out two SU-30MKIs into a kill zone for twin-layered F-16s in groups of 4 each that were to use Snap-down tactics, while the PAF Mirages turned back. 4-5 AMRAAMS were fired by the F-16s, but were evaded by the SU-30s. The PAF pilots were aware that the SU-30s flying at a relatively low level would not be able to launch a BVRAAM Snap-up at distant targets flying at much higher altitudes, whereas they could maximise the 25-30,000’ advantage they held. They knew about the BVRs on the SU-30, and utilised this knowledge to their benefit. The one aircraft that worried them was the upgraded Mirage 2000I, with BVRAAM capabilities unknown to them and, therefore, deployed 4 x JF17s to lure them away. All their tactics worked perfectly, but they had not given the Bison much credibility. This led to the loss of an F-16 to a MiG-21, a global first and unacceptable in the small egotistical world of the fighter pilot, given the numerical (3:1) and tactical advantage they enjoyed to start with. 8 IAF aircraft ( 2 x SU-30MKI+2 x Mirage 2000I+ 4 x MiG-21 Bison) pushed back 24 PAF aircraft (8 x F-16 +8 x JF17+ 8 x Mirage III/V) and the IAF claimed a huge victory with one F-16 down vs one Bison lost and zero ground damage. The PAF omitted study of the debriefs of the USAF v IAF exercises, viz., Cope India 04 & 05, a serious lapse. When the entire PAF package seemed to be heading for Srinagar/Avantipora, 4 Bisons were scrambled. Varthaman was quickest off and used the hills intelligently to screen himself. He was under the IAF’s Integrated Air Command & Control System’s (IACCS) cover and in a steep climb, saw an F-16 dead ahead turning lazily his way. He used his helmet-mounted designator to lock his R-73 missile to the F-16 and launched well within kill range. His call on R/T of a missile launch was monitored by the AWACS. Apparently the PAF AEW&C aircraft then saw the MiG-21 coming in and warned the F-16, which then turned hard-but it was too late. 7-9 seconds and the F-16 vanished from the radar screens, a victim of circumstance. The Bison was travelling so fast that his radius of turn was very large and he was shot down some 45 seconds later by another F-16, probably the lost F-16’s wingman. Varthaman had actually been ordered to break off, but he disregarded the order to shoot down the F-16. He ejected safely, but inside POK, and was captured by the locals. He fell some 7-8 km away from the other/others. The other three Bisons turned away and returned to base. 43 days after the Balakot attacks, select journalists were invited to see Balakot for themselves. It immediately took a political angle as Pakistani interference in the forthcoming Indian elections. Ex Cope India 04. In the IAF-USAF Ex Cope India 04, the MiG-21 Bison had sprung a nasty bolt from the blue on USAF F-15s. The positive attributes of the MiG-21 such as small size, low radar signature, instantaneous turn rate and “jackrabbit acceleration" proved to be crucial factors. Its new helmet mounted sight and high-off-boresight R-73 air-to-air missiles turned the MiG-21 into a “Great Equaliser” in the WVR (within visual range) combat arena The USAF F-16s also faced similar problems. Ex Cope India 04 showed an unbelievable 9:1 kill ratio in favour of India. The PAF may have made the same mistake as the USAF, and underestimated the IAF response, that too, without an AWACS or AEW&C. After Cope India 04, when asked about the capabilities of IAF pilots, Col Greg Newbech, USAF Team Leader said: “What we’ve seen in the last two weeks is, the IAF can stand toe-to-toe with best AF in the world. I pity the pilot who has to face the IAF and chances the day to underestimate him; because he won’t be going home.” Moitraanak (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Hi Moitraanak, I am not sure what you are trying to do. You know very well that Cinema Rasik cannot be any kind of reliable source. You seem to be forgetting the fact that it is the Indian Government's job to refute the various claims, if it wants to do so. Presumably, it has all the evidence it needs. We can't manufacture evidence here. By the way, thanks for telling us that Abhinandan disobeyed orders. I could sense that it wasn't part of the script. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC) References