Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Page moves and merges

Kindly correct the indian map.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-45987-29 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No info provided on what could be wrong with the map. --McSly (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

A far too long conversation on the topic

There is nothing wrong with the map except for what I fixed. As for other reasons, if applicable here, Wikipedia does not advocate India's official map or territorial claims. It shows what is internationally recognized. Morris (talk with this worm) 18:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Internationally recongized by whom? ~2026-46386-24 (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

As I can see, you, @Morrisworm, are the author of this map, and therefore the onus is on you to establish that it is “internationally recognized.” ~2026-46386-24 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Arbitration Committee: — I’m requesting guidance from the active Arbitration Committee . The dispute concerns the assertion that this map represents what is “internationally recognized,” but it has not been clarified by whom or according to what authoritative source or standard. There is no single universally accepted map of India’s northern borders, the UN depicts the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and notes that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not been agreed upon by the parties.

Seeking guidance of active ArbCom. Wikipedia needs to be neutral about this. @Aoidh, Asilvering, CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Izno, KrakatoaKatie, ScottishFinnishRadish, SilverLocust, and Theleekycauldron:

https://geoportal.un.org/arcgis/home/item.html?id=e4ee80edac9d4e08b8303522dd4a5fc1

https://geoportal.un.org/arcgis/home/item.html?fromSearch=true&id=39cca989c0414c8384e8c59de27da39c&searchFacet=card+dropdown+item+details&searchPosition=14&searchTerm ~2026-46386-24 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@WMFOffice ~2026-46386-24 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, neither the Arbitration Committee nor the Wikimedia Foundation settles content disputes; you can address those by following the dispute resolution policy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe this has gone beyond being merely a “content dispute” and now raises a concern about editorial conduct and neutrality on the part of certain editors.

There is a relevant earlier precedent. In 2020, Wikimedia was involved in a dispute concerning an incorrect/disputed depiction of India's borders, to which the Government of India formally objected. Following an extensive discussion, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged stating: “Although the depiction of Aksai Chin is incidental here, there is no reason to have it be one-sided.”

I am not asking ArbCom or WMF to decide the India–Pakistan territorial dispute. The issue is whether Wikipedia's own neutrality standards are being followed, and whether a previously disputed depiction is now being presented as an objectively “internationally recognized” position without adequate sourcing. Requesting examination of editorial conduct in this regard.

@Jimbo Wales ~2026-46386-24 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron has already provided the route you may take if you wish to have an impact. Continuing to ping random groups or people not already aware of this discussion from before you started it will likely result in the loss of all editing privilege.

To be quite frank, the issue is not on English Wikipedia. You will need to request assistance with changing the SVGs on Commons. Izno (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not on English Wikipedia! That is why I tagged Arbitration Committee members, the Wikimedia Foundation office, and the co-founder himself. I also do not see any solid reason why Wikipedia should not be considered the publisher here rather than merely an intermediary, in this case. ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

None of the people you tagged are going to assist you here. This is a content dispute, we have procedures for content disputes, and throwing your toys out of your pram and "I Demand Immediate Action Because I Am Correct" is not how it works. You've already been linked to dispute resolution, and you can also try the NPOV noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with an explanation of what is wrong with the map and sources that demonstrate that it is incorrect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Earlier, this issue was dismissed as a content dispute. After I pointed out the concern regarding Wikipedia's role as a publisher , another Arbitration Committee member has now become involved in the discussion.

I cannot help but feel that this is once again an eye wash. The request was specifically for examination of editorial conduct , not merely for another determination of whether the map itself is correct.

If the response to a request concerning editorial to arbitration committee conduct is simply to redirect the discussion back to the content dispute, then the actual concern raised remains unaddressed. ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Wikipedia's role as a publisher and I think I've made my stance on where I stand between the community and the foundation abundantly clear in the past. This is a content issue and I suggested starting with an explanation of what is wrong with the map and sources that demonstrate that it is incorrect because I have no idea what your objection to the content is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Map gone ??? ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Here it is . https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistan_India_Locator_2.png ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Notified the author/publisher of the map for update here keeping intermidiary @WMFOffice: in loop ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Two weeks notice to the publisher of the image ended.

Moving up in escalation matrix: Tagging Stewards https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/bar @1234qwer1234qwer4, A09, Alaa, Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, AmandaNP, AntiCompositeNumber, AramilFeraxa, Barras, Base, Bsadowski1, Count Count, DerHexer, Daniuu, Elton, EPIC, HakanIST, Hoo man, Johannnes89, Jon Kolbert, KonstantinaG07, M7, MarcGarver, Martin Urbanec, Masti, MdsShakil, Melos, Mykola7, RadiX, Sakretsu, Schniggendiller, SHB2000, Sotiale, Tegel, Teles, Vermont, VIGNERON, Xaosflux, XXBlackburnXx, and Yahya: ~2026-49247-00 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t ping us, stewards won’t get involved in content issues (especially not on large wikis where we aren’t even allowed to act except for rare emergencies). Johannnes89 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

No – what Joh said; this is not the place to spew your nationalist agenda. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

How do non-involved RS depict it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Stewards shall be provided a two-week notice period to respond or take appropriate action. Upon expiry of this period, any applicable liability shall shift from the publisher(editor) to the intermediary(Wikimedia Foundation)~2026-46374-61 (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Faulty map

Why are South Africa and France missing on the map of the conflict in the infobox? Ntrl9284 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

They did not participate. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand? You're saying countries such as the UK, Mongolia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Armenia, Portugal, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, et cetera DID participate? They all appear on the map. Ntrl9284 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, yes that is a weird map. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

South Africa was at least partially chopped off by the frame boundary. The exclusion of France, Ireland, Kosovo and Israel/Palestine is less justifiable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Declassified: Operation Sindoor documentary

Merits inclusion because it is an extremely well-received documentary about the nuts-and-bolts of the policy and fighting of the war itself, and this in military and diplomatic circles. It was also surprisingly popular with the public given its format, and a Pakistani think tank got pissy about it, which speaks to the competing narratives. I had hesitated to place this under Popular culture à la the Kargil War because of its heft and seriousness, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. kencf0618 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

So use it as a source. But this article is about the war, not how it is represented in the media. So, at best, this warrants a one-line mention in a section that includes other cultural references, and not just one created to include this one documentary. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2026

Change 'According to Pakistan, the Indian strikes hit civilian areas, including mosques and residential areas, and resulted in civilian casualties.' to 'Indian strikes hit civilian areas including mosques and residential areas, and resulted in civilian casualties killing twenty-six people, including children and women and injured 46 others.' Snap13214 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No new source provided. Is there a problem with the sources currently used? --McSly (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Images

If i may, can we include some images on this page? although I have managed to find some Indian Imanges here ->
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gujranwala_explosion_1_CCTV.png - CCTV footage of Gujranwala explosion File:Indian Navy Carrier Battle Group - Operation Sindoor.jpg -Deployed Indian CBG

Terror camps struck on first day

• File:Operation Sindoor Targetted Terrorist Camps.png
• File:Operation Sindoor Targets Terrorist Camp Sarjal Sialkot destroyed.png
• File:Operation Sindoor Targets Terrorist Camp Markaz Taiba Murdike.png
• File:Operation Sindoor Target Terrorist Camp Kotli Abbas.png
• File:Operation Sindoor Target Terrorist Camp Kotli Abbas Destroyed.png

I have not been able to find any other Image files and i think it may make the article unbalanced. additionaal suggestions that i think could be included under the Indian claims section could be these images of the Indian Press confrences

• File:Director General Air Operations (DGAO) Sh. A.K. Bharti briefing the media on ‘Operation Sindoor’ showing shotdown Lotering Munitions and UAV's.jpg
• File:Director General Air Operations (DGAO) Sh. A.K. Bharti briefing the media on ‘Operation Sindoor’ showing retreived PL-15 LR Air to Air missile.jpg
• File:Director General Air Operations (DGAO) Sh. A.K. Bharti briefing the media on ‘Operation Sindoor’ showing Multi Layered Air Defence.jpg
• File:Director General Air Operations (DGAO) Sh. A.K. Bharti briefing the media on ‘Operation Sindoor’ showing attack on Nur Khan Airbase.jpg
• File:DGMO Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, Air Marshal AK Bharti, DGAO, IAF, Vice Admiral AN Pramod and Major General S.S. Sharda briefing the media on Operation Sindoor at National Media Centre.jpg

And maybe we can include this in the aftermath section during PM Modi's visit to Adampur File:PM Narendra Modi Saluting the Air Warriors and Soldiers at Adampur airforce base - Operation Sindoor.jpg.

have not found any Pakistani pictures that are of this on commons (pls let me know if there are any that are suitable).
Thanks 18:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)~ 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Then let's wait until there are. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

AirForces Monthly sources

I think the AirForces Monthly sources used in this section need to be reviewed.

A lot of the detailed claims about Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos appear to come from the same AirForces Monthly/Key Aero reporting, particularly refs [188] and [42]. This includes claims about JF-17 strikes, the alleged destruction of the IACCS at Barnala, attacks on specific military facilities, and the alleged destruction of S-400 systems.

These are fairly significant claims, but several of them do not appear to have clear independent corroboration in the article. I don't think we should present them as established facts when the main source for them is essentially the same publication.

The S-400 claim is a good example. The source itself appears to acknowledge limitations in what can be established from the available satellite imagery, yet the Wikipedia text presents the destruction much more definitively. The source itself describes satellite imagery as showing burn marks or disturbed ground but acknowledges that the available evidence does not establish exactly what happened, the Wikipedia text should not present destruction of the system as an established fact without stronger independent corroboration.

I'm not saying the material should be removed simply because AirForces Monthly is paywalled. I'm asking editors to check these claims against independent reliable sources.

In particular, I suggest that the following claims be checked individually against independent, reliable sources:

• the specific JF-17 stand-off attacks and the locations attributed to them;
• the claim that the IACCS at Barnala was destroyed and that this disrupted communications between IAF leadership and fighters;
• claims concerning the destruction or neutralisation of S-400 systems;
• claims concerning the destruction of specific BrahMos-related facilities and other military infrastructure where the principal supporting source is AirForces Monthly;
• other highly specific operational details that are supported principally by the same source or author.

Where there is independent corroboration, the claims can stay. Where there isn't, I think the claims should either be attributed and qualified appropriately or removed.

This seems especially worth doing given the existing maintenance notice about the article's reliance on sources that may be too closely associated with the subject. ~2026-51107-46 (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Source 178 and 211 also belong to AirForces Monthly ~2026-51107-46 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an independent RS, and as far as I can see they are backed up by other sources or are attributed claims. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you point me to the specific sources that independently corroborate the claims in question?

My concern is mainly with the more specific claims in the section, rather than with AirForces Monthly's general reliability. In particular, I'm referring to the claims about the IACCS at Barnala, the S-400 at Adampur,

If those claims are independently supported elsewhere, I'm happy to look at those sources. But I think it would be useful to identify them claim by claim, especially where the AirForces Monthly article is the only detailed source currently cited.

Also, if something is an attributed claim rather than an established fact, I think the wording should make that distinction clear. Attribution alone doesn't necessarily establish that the underlying event actually happened.

In fact, the article itself says:

"one thing is certain that without on-site photographs, authenticated radar recordings, and parametric analysis, what truly occurred between these two systems remains, for the time being, a matter of speculation and personal interpretation."

If the source is saying that the available evidence does not establish what actually happened, I don't think the Wikipedia article should present the destruction of the S-400 as an established fact elsewhere in the same section without stronger independent evidence. ~2026-51107-46 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Ahh,, there may be an issue with it being used more than once, as if its a different site. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

can we proceed with removing the claims that rely on them ~2026-51864-89 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

No as it has not been established they are unreliable, what we should do is cut out the repeated uses (as implying more than one RS has said it) and make them attributed claims "according to Airforce Weekly". Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)