Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IAF-mig-21-wreckage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add the rejection of Su 30 shooting by Indian sources

As an unconfirmed incident, I request you to please add the Indian rejection of the SU 30 claim from pakistan. The article only mention pakistani rejection of F16 claim by India. Indian rejection of Su 30 claim from pakistan should be also added as we don't have any credible evidence of any SU 30 being shot down. India also said it flew the same Su 30 that's claimed to be shot down. India also debunks pakistani claim of shooting a SU 30 as it got no evidence. Thank you very much for your efforts on being neutral and accommodating. We all appreciate it very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmb11e (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

As we do not mention it, why do we need to add a denial? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

On indian losses there was only Mig-21 show on wikipedia but pakistan air force shot down 2 indiant jet one Mig-21 ans one Su-30 MKI. Please change and add one SU-30 MKI loss on indian side. OUIOUI18 (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no conformation of any SU 30 being shot down. pakistan has never produced a single evidence to support the SU 30 claims. So its deemed as false. An aircraft crash require large amount of proof. There should be crash site, crashed aircraft parts all over the place, testimonials including verified videos and pictures from locals, radar signatures, pilot and more. Lack of any of these evidence point out that SU 30 is a fake claim made by pakistan without any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.200.253 (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

This standoff between Pakistan and India was won by Pakistan because Pakisatn Armed Land Forces has successfully defend Pakistan. And Indian Loss 1 mig-21, 1 su-30MKI , 1 Mi-17 and Pakistan loss More than 10 civilians and only 2 Pakistani solider loss their life. I am sending this edit request to change the result of this border skirmishes between Pakistan and india. I want to result from Inconclusive to Pakistan Army Victory. Thank you OUIOUI18 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Furthermore, having a greater number of casualties does not necessarily mean a loss. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Su 30 shooting of pakistan is denied by India and no further proof has been given by pakistan. So its an unconfirmed or false story from pakistan. India also claims a F16 got shot down and also attacked a religious center in pakistan with few causalities claimed. This cannot be ruled as a victory of any side as there is no clear advantage to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.201.181 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add the Indian rejection of second jet claimed to be shot down by pakistan

I request the admin to add a missing point. pakistan claimed that they shot a second Indian aircraft. pakistan never provided any credible evidence for that claim. However India rejected the pakistani claim many times and cited lack of any evidence. Here its added that pakistan claimed the second jet shooting but Indian rejection of the claim is not added. Its a very important part and should be added. India rejected the pak claims many times. This should be added here as the second jet claim is mentioned here so its rejection of that claim by India should also be mentioned. 152.58.218.120 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

We do "India rejected this version of events and stated to have "successfully foiled" Pakistan's attempt to "target military installations"". Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sir. Its not clearly stated anywhere in the main article that India rejected the second jet shooting. It should be clearly mentioned that India rejected the pakistani claim of shooting down of second jet that lacks any evidence. It just says India rejects this version of events. That's not clear. India clearly said it many times that it rejects second jet shooting and flew the same jet which pakistan claimed that they shot down. This is a main part of this and should be added separately. India rejected pakistai second jet shooting and says its juts a coverup of their loss. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/false-claim-india-rubbishes-pakistans-claim-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-2003211

Like this you mean "But a subsequent statement revised the count down to one–Abhinandan Varthaman, a Wing Commander.[87] According to Indian media allegations, the other pilot the Pakistan Army claimed to have captured and taken to the Combined Military Hospital is claimed to be the downed F-16 pilot"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sir please add that "India rejected pakistani claim of the shooting of second jet". https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/false-claim-india-rubbishes-pakistans-claim-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-2003211. India clearly said its a false story without any evidence. India also flew the same Su 30 pakisatn claimed to have shot down. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-air-force-day-iaf-flies-sukhoi-30mki-fighter-jet-that-pakistan-claims-it-shot-down-2113472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmb11e (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need to say more than we do? Slatersteven (talk)

Sir its an important part of this incident. pakistanis calimed that they shot two Indian aircrafts. One is mig 21. They also said they shot another aircraft but never gave any credible evidence of that. The second aircraft that pakistan claimed to have shot down is rejected by India. This is an important part. "India rejected pakistan claim of shooting of second aircraft that lacks any credible evidence". This sentence should be added because in this article its written that pakistan claimed shooting of seocnd jet. So Indian response should be added. Indian response is that "There is no credible evidence of pakistn shooting a second aircraft and is a false story". "India rejected pakistan claim of shooting of second aircraft that lacks any credible evidence" this should be added

and we say they then revised that, and that India claimed they shot down an f-16. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Result

Hi, you have added the result section in the page. You should either remove this part as these are skirmishes, or you should write Pakistani victory. Because India claimed to have attacked targets in Pakistan killing number of people, which by impartial observers never happened. Then Pakistan retaliated and downed Indian aircraft and captured the pilot, and also warded off and defended attack from the Indian navy. Similarly, other events also prove the same. These were very successful and winning set of events for Pakistan. 2001:14BB:CA:986F:7031:320C:CBD:E957 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Moderator would you respond to this? 2001:14BB:AA:917B:C0B1:BF60:6B3B:ECF6 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

OUIOUI18 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to change an information in the balakot strikes. This "Pakistani officials acknowledged the intrusion of Indian aircraft into the country's airspace but rejected the statements about the results. They stated that the Indian jets were intercepted and that the payloads were dropped in unpopulated areas and resulted in no casualties or infrastructural damage.[57] Pervez Khattak, the Pakistani Defence Minister, stated that the Pakistani Air Force did not retaliate at that time because "they could not gauge the extent of the damage".[58]" into this Pakistani officials acknowledged the intrusion of Indian aircraft into the country's airspace but rejected the statements about the results. They stated that the Indian jets were intercepted and that the payloads were dropped in unpopulated areas and resulted in no casualties or infrastructural damage, only a crow was touched in the airstrike and is dead.[57] Pervez Khattak, the Pakistani Defence Minister, stated that the Pakistani Air Force did not retaliate at that time because "they could not gauge the extent of the damage", but later they retaliate.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I just finally figured out the change you want to make, you want to add a line about a dead crow, no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question.

"The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters.

between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo.

here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you

Shah030000 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

pakistani victory 94.46.236.212 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess in the sense that the military operation achieved its goal? Overall the conflict is inconclusive but yeah, in the two 2019 strikes, going by what is verifiable independently, Pakistan did defend successfully and then retaliated with no losses. Somboody (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

Shah030000 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to insert Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, who has 15 years' experience in analyzing satellite images of weapons sites and systems, confirmed that the high-resolution satellite picture showed the structures in question. "The high-resolution images don't show any evidence of bomb damage," he said. Lewis viewed three other high-resolution Planet Labs pictures of the site taken within hours of the image provided to Reuters. between A Reuters investigation based on high-resolution satellite imagery by Planet Labs noted an unchanged landscape when compared and to an April 2018 satellite photo. here is reference to my source so please kindly allow me to edit as it will contribute to your article. Thank you

I think we already say this more or less. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)