Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PAF F16 Pilot False Story[edit]

Whoever (Yoonadue) wrote the above must know that pilots wear flags and shields of PAF on either arm. It is nearly impossible to mistake a PAF pilot as an IAF pilot. Secondly, the language and accent of people from two countries is different. See credible articles below. Lastly, PAF did not use F-16 in retaliatory action against India, providing proof after proof. Whereas, IAF has been unable to provide any proof for downed jet.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/229966-pakistan-used-a-jf-17-in-dogfight-with-india-report

https://www.dawn.com/news/1467526/jf-17-not-f-16-used-in-air-combat-report

https://www.dawn.com/news/1467971/foreign-journalists-find-holes-in-indian-narrative-on-f-16-usage-balakot-strike

Further proof of no PAF F-16 shot down, no PAF pilot missing/lynched in Nawshehra. In fact, the fabricated story started circulating on social media (originating from India), and without any credible source to back it.

https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/03/05/why-claims-about-the-paf-pilots-lynching-dont-add-up

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/no-proof-india-shot-down-pakistan-f-16/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/02/falcon-vs-bison-verifying-a-mig-21-wreck/

In fact, there is a possibility that the IAF shot down its own MiG-17 helicopter (that went down the same day as other IAF jets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafargilani (talkcontribs) 20:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Ahluwalia the Indian minister of state (inferior than cabinet) for Electronics[edit]

DBigXray removed a statement by India's Minister of State.[1] If that statement contradicts another statement then both can be presented neutrally. But the statement of a minister is significant enough to merit inclusion.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reinstated. @DBigXray: There is no policy that states that statements cannot be included because it's "inferior". It's notable and well-sourced and thus, is suitable for inclusion. --QEDK () 19:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
QEDK I have reverted your restoration of cherry picked quote added by Bless sins as a Good faith revert, This is blatant cherry picking of a quote to make a point. this is not an official statement and neither is he the defence minister, hundreds of Indian politicians have made thousands of statements on the airstrike, are you suggesting we go down that route ? --DBigXray 04:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with DBX. We are not mentioning any statements/assertions which are attributed to unknown sources or are by people not intimately involved with the affair. If we are adding Ahluwalia; we need to add Amit Shah. Pending that we need to add about Sidhus' challenging the count. And, this will go on. It's the route to a giant mess. WBGconverse 11:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
So add all of it. How is removing a sourced statement from MoS justified by not including Amit Shah's statement? This is borderline WP:OWNERship to the extent that you're using your own logic to defy policy. Just so we're clear, we're not mentioning any statements, but notable ones. It is not your call to determine whose assertions are superior or inferior — the goal is to remain unbiased and that includes putting contradictory statements; "route to a giant mess" is not a valid argument. --QEDK () 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
QEDK, you need an alphabet soup of policies, right? Read WP:WEIGHT. He is a MoS of a dept. which is not any linked with defense affairs.
The main article is 2019 Balakot airstrike; where all these stuff shall or rather can be added. Every random politicians' claiming some or the other stuff about the strikes does not belong here. I did a rough count and was able to spot at-least 10 high profile politicians (CMs, national-party-chiefs et al) who has commented something or the other about the strike and has been covered by at least 3-4 reliable sources on each occasion, at first glances. Do we mention all these? Do we then proceed to Pakistan to find out about the statements of their politicians of the top tier (who have been un-doubtably covered by their media) and mention them? Further, do we proceed in the same manner about Pakistan's retaliatory strikes?
Also, I need not learn any lesson about ownership from you. WBGconverse 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop taking things so personally, I was replying to both of you (and the OWNERship point was definitely for DBX). And I think it's ironic that you will cherry-pick the policy and not give any weightage to the ones on the very same page. --QEDK () 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Pray enlighten me about mine cherry-picking the sub-policy from the same page. If you do believe that the second paragraph in my above reply (or some variant of it) is the way to proceed; please journey but after a RFC. Thanks, WBGconverse 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
WBG, you seem to hint at adding this to 2019 Balakot airstrike instead. But DBigXray removed the statement from that article[2] claiming consensus here to not even have the statement at that article.Bless sins (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement is significant, even if it comes from a junior minister, because it has been widely covered in reliable sources. There plenty of Indian newspapers which have covered it; Pakistani sources[3] (including a government source[4]) and international sources[5][6] have also covered it.Bless sins (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion about adding this, no consensus was reached so it should not have been added.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I recall there was a discussion and you responded to it, but there was no clear opposition to this so I added it.Bless sins (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not WP:NEWSPAPER not everything that is covered in newspaper can have its own article or can be added into an existing article. I have explained why It has been removed. --DBigXray 08:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no policy that bars wikipedia from including the statements of a junior minister. If it contradicts another statement, then both deserve mention. I pointed out above that the content in question is covered by Indian, Pakistani and International sources.Bless sins (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Also the article currently contains the opinions of Praveen Swami who is not even a minister in India. Why should the article have statements by random journalists but not actual ministers?Bless sins (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

India re-affirmed twice that F-16 downed: This needs to be mentioned[edit]

Its worth mentioning that not only ANI reported that an F-16 was downed by IAF, but India re-affirmed twice officially that it downed an F-16.

Firstly, in Indian Army, Air Force & Navy's Joint Breifing dated 28th Feb 2019, IAF senior officer Mr Kapoor re-affirmed that the aircraft they downed was an F-16. (Source).

After that, in briefing of Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated 8th March 2019, Indian officer Raveesh Kumar re-affirmed that Wing Commander Abhinandan shot down an F-16. (Source).

These two events are worth mentioning in the article's sub-section titled "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot". -Yoonadue (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What do non involved sources say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"UPDATE: Following publication of this article, Pakistan has disputed the events described." So the source acknowledged the claim is disputed. This is the whole problem, no independent verification.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see what the Hong Kong based Asia Times" has to say on this: Can an old MiG-21 aircraft destroy a more modern F-16? Yes, in fact an Indian pilot flying a version of the MiG-21 called Bison allegedly shot down a Pakistani F-16 using a Russian R-73 Vympel air to air missile, known as a high off bore-sight air-to-air weapon. 

For the record, Pakistan continues to deny one of its F-16s was shot down. But denials notwithstanding, the evidence seems increasingly compelling against Pakistan’s denial.[7] ML talk 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Any idea where this evidence of a downed F-16 is, apart from rhetoric nobody has provided anything that proves an F-16 has come down somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait. Did you read the article? It reads: "Some news reports confirm that the F-16 shot down was a B Model, a two-seater, as two parachutes were observed after the plane was hit. The pilot and co-pilot bailed out over Pakistani territory, the reports said. The B-model, like the A, is the least capable and least modernized of the Pakistani F-16 fleet." Further down, the article reads, "While it seems the case that the Indian pilot was able to kill an older model F-16..."Thanks, ML talk 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I will add that the above sources seem pretty ambivalent about the claim, saying it might be true...but has been denied (and, in essence, we have no way of knowing).Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Please also refer Point 6 in this statement[1] quoted below, basically summarizes why Pak cannot accept the downing of its jet, because it will open another can of worms. But if US does have a proper mechanism in place to check the F16s (as claimed here[2]), eventually it will be known if PAF lost one of its F-16.

The statement by our Indian Air Force is in the public domain. Only one aircraft was lost by us. If, as Pakistan claims, they have a video recording of the downing of a second Indian aircraft, why have they not shown it to the international media even after more than one week? Questions should be asked to them as to where the fuselage of the aircraft is and what has happened to the pilots? As we have already said, there are eye-witness accounts and electronic evidence that Pakistan deployed F-16 aircraft and that one F-16 was shot down by Wing Commander Abhinandan. Evidence of the use of AMRAAM Missile, which can only be deployed on the F-16 with Pakistan, has also been shown to the media. Pakistan should explain why it continues to deny that its F-16 aircraft has been shot down? We have asked the United States to also examine whether the use of F16 against India is in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale.

References

  1. ^ Statement by the Spokesperson on India Pakistan Situation March 09, 2019
  2. ^ "Dogfight over Pakistan's 'use and loss of F-16' lands US in awkward spot - Times of India ►". The Times of India.
Irrelevant, it is still a contested claim do not reject contested claims because they make sense to us (that is OR). It does not matter what an Indian officer says, it is not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Slatersteven and MilborneOne, Pak denies that F16 were used at all, but India has already put evidence on record that nails that lie. See Pakistan F-16s launched two AMRAAMs, one missed target, other hit MiG-21 Quote: "American experts, who were shown the debris from the Indian side, have confirmed that remains in such quantity could only have come from a missile that had missed its target."--DBigXray 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
And when those US experts come forward and publicly support it fine, until then it is still only a claim made by an involved party. And use and loss are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that they found a missile fired from an F-16 doesnt mean it was attached to an F-16, as you quote "missed its target" clearly indicates a lone missile. The F-16 could have fired a missile then flown home for tea. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • MilborneOne agree with your assertion. My point was Pak has been denying that (1) PAF had used F16 and (2) its F16 was downed. The missile remains Debunks (1) and not (2). A conclusive proof for (2) is yet to be released. --DBigXray 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There are a myriad of possibilities, a AMRAAM could have been fitted to a Pakistani JF-17. None of the sources provided state why the AMRAAM could only be launched from an F-16. AMRAAM's are routinely employed on a myriad of other aircraft other than F-16's, such as Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Panavia Tornado ADV, and Northrop F-5 fighters. Just because the AMRAAM's in Pakistan's inventory were sold with the intent that they be used on F-16's doesn't mean that Pakistan has fitted them to other aircraft in their inventory.XavierGreen (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
XavierGreen please provide reliable source for your assertion. US would never allow fitting its top notch missile on a Chinese jet. --DBigXray 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not the United States "allowed" it, the missiles in question are under the control of the Pakistani government, they have physical possession of them and its entirely feasible that they would equip whatever jets they have on hand with them. The Egyptian and Romanian airforces have been alleged in the past to have fitted AIM-9 Sidewinders to MiG-21 airframes. Its entirely possible that the Pakistani aiforce could have fitten an AIM-120 to a JF-17 or even a J-7, without American approval.XavierGreen (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── it does matter, stop wasting our time if you cannot find a reliable source for your claim. And it is not as simple as screwing the missile to the plane. The integration with on board radar needs to happen and this won't be allowed to work without the manufacturers support. The amraam site lists the plane that can fire it. --DBigXray 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have reliable sources for you assertions either, there is no reliable source available that states that a JF-17 can't be equipped with a AIM-120.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • as a matter of fact I have provided reliable source above that says there is no plane other than F16 in PAF that can fire AMRAAM. you seem to disagree but you have no reliable source --DBigXray 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All the sources I have seen, including those that believed that Pakistan used JF-17s, admitted that only F-16s can be fitted with AIM-120. See, e.g., [8], [9]. So, it is unreasonable for us to speculate otherwise.
  • But all this discussion seems to have gone off on a tangent. The original question raised was why are we omitting the fact that the Indian government has claimed that an F-16 was downed. This is not some unofficial news report attributed to unnamed officials. I haven't yet seen an answer to that question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What I am emphasising over is that India has officially affirmed twice that it has downed an F-16, but the current version article doesn't even mention this official Indian claim. It simply says that "IAF sources" have claimed so and ANI has reported so, which is clear misrepresentation of facts. I am not asking to write conclusively that an F-16 was killed but Indian claim needs mention. Lets reach the consensus that this Indian official claim needs to be mentioned in the article's sub-section titled "Retaliatory airstrikes, capture and release of pilot".

We do "India also claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16".Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Admins,

Please do the necessary edits in this regard. -Yoonadue (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Yoonadue no need to drag admins into something that we can fix among ourselves. Please propose your version here in the form of change X to Y and we can discuss and add it--DBigXray 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian government officially maintained it was pre-emptive strike and never it was a revenge attack[edit]

Article wrongly says that Indian government told that it was a retaliatory strike. But, India told in official briefing that it was a preemptive strike for a possible terror strike. See the official Indian communique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A link would be nice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
OK I think we can say India has said this, but RS have said it was in revenge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Links to showcase it was not the revenge attack, but a pre-emptive strike to avoid a possible terrorist attack
  1. The Balakot statement: Establishing a responsible India
  2. The Balakot Strikes: Analysing India’s “Non-Military Preemptive Action”
  3. BJP to its leaders: Keep restraint, project Balakot as pre-emptive strike, not revenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan has not allowed Media and local people to visit the Islamic seminary targeted by India[edit]

Pakistan has not allowed any media houses or the local people to visit the Islamic seminary, which India claims to have targeted using the roof piercing precision bombs.

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan had no support and Indian action of air strike inside Pakistan was supported with intelligent silence[edit]

India violated the Line of Control and also the International Border and bombed regions inside Pakistan. No major country came up with a statement condemning the attack and supported India by their silent approval of the same.

Pakistan had been isolated internationally and it had no support from any major countries such as P5(UNSC permanent members) or G8(Top 8 powerful economies) countries.

Ref:

How did the international community react to India's Air strikes on Balakot?

Advantage India, after Balakot air strike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowshare1 (talkcontribs) 08:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference for consideration[edit]

To be considered for inclusion in the article:

I have also left this on the talk page of 2019 Pulwama attack but I think it can be considered here too since this statement was made afterwards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Right,it must include her. The statement is very important and must include here. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't report narratives of Pakistani politicians from Indian sources. AFAIR, Sayed's quote was picked out of context. As much as it was extraordinarily bad phrasing, (if you listen in entirety rather than the trimmed video) he was referring to Pakistan's response in the entire standoff. Completely unmerited unless foreign media picks it up. WBGconverse 04:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric I only read the article linked above, and it appears to be only referring to Pulwama attack. Did Pakistan media not cover this statement? If they did, I guess we can possibly add it in the aftermath of Pulwama attack article. Definitely not on this article. --DBigXray 05:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SPICE 2000 bombs do not destroy the buildings like in old Iraq war photos[edit]

Please add below content to the article.

Bombs used are smart and intelligent bombs, kill everyone inside a building but does not create any damage to the near by buildings. Used for urban and targeted warfare.

SPICE 2000 bombs just go inside the building using small opening and create shockwaves to kill everyone inside instantly, no major damage to the nearby buildings. Please add the details from the below references. Ref:

Knowshare1 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)