Talk:Surgical strike

Origins?
I heard the term "surgical strike" before the gulf war. While it may have been a phrase used often in the gulf war, it did not originate there. Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

civilian lifes
I'M A REDNECK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.75.35.91 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

we really need citations for the "millions of civilian lives" sentence... thats alot of people for accidental killing and it should be cited before claiming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.178.142 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

India section
Last edit on Indian surgical strike

I have been working on the history of South Asian history (Mainly Nepal, India and Pakistan), what I have figured out is that whenever there is talk of India - Pakistan the talk or argument becomes heated. So coming on the so-called "Surgical strike by India", All the edits contains POV(Point Of View) regarding India surgical strike whether it is in support or whether it is against the article. I have seen many POVs in the edit history.

So, From a third-person perspective, I won't be able to consider what Pakistani and Indian media says. Because in Wikipedia article related to Pakistan history and culture, etc, sources from Indian media is comfortably used to provide legit data. And in many India related wiki pages, I have seen many sources from Pakistani media or Pak-gov sites. But in this case, they both are accusing each other of providing wrong data. And just not in this case in many other cases like the Indo-Pak war, where the Pakistan government and media once said they didn't even fight the war after signing the instrumental surrender. And from the Indian side, there are many points hidden like in the Indo-China war media and gov coverage.

What I have concluded from all the research that I have done is that there was a "Surgical strike" and also there was not a "Surgical strike by India", And I have concluded this as per sources of BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, CNN Network and the Huffington Post. This signifies not only Indian and Pakistan media outlets are not reliable but they all are also because they all are contradicting each other in many facts and data points.

So, let me get you to the summary and please I don't want to be in an edit war. There is not enough information which is been provided by the Indian Government to believe that there was a surgical strike. Which outraged the media war between the two countries and worldwide also. But the matter of fact is that there wasn't any reliable data provided to deny the surgical strike done by India.

This leaves us with three options:

1. We should add "India's surgical strike" in the Example section and use sources that support or are in favour of India's Surgical Strike and ignore the data which is been against it.

2. We should remove and continuously remove "India's surgical strike" from the Example section and use sources that are denying the fact and ignore data that is in favour of "India's Surgical Strike".

3. We should do both, We should include both and leave it to the reader to decide if it is true or if it is wrong. And we will be just providing data not POVs and non-factual data.

If you are more towards the 3 options then I think the best edit will be this:

India
India announced/claims to conducted a cross-border surgical strike specifically on militant launch pads on 29th September 2016 in retaliation to the 2016 Uri attack and preventing attacks being planned by Pakistan-based militants. According to the announcement Indian special forces went up to 500 meters to 2 km across LoC to destroy terrorist launch pads in POK. Which was later denied by Pakistan.

Indian media reported the casualty figures variously from 35 to 70 terrorists and the death of 9 Pakistani army troops which Pakistan denies and was highly doubted by many media firms.

Pakistan accepted the deaths of two Pakistani soldiers and 9 wounded which has been denied by India. Pakistan announced that two of its soldiers were killed in cross-border shelling, not in a Surgical strike done by India. Pakistan also calimed that there wasn't any surgical strike.

As for now "2016 Indian surgical strike" is been unclear, due to the lack of facts and proof in support and against the "2016 Indian Surgical Strike". One side of the surgical strike by The Diplomat., Another side of the story by BBC.

That was all I wanted to say and I know if I add this, it will be deleted within seconds by both types of editiors which are in favor and against this. So Now I am leaving all this to you. And we should focus on providing data and information to the reader with no point of view and should not hide information from the reader.

Regarding this example, any conceivable reason as to why this section should exist, knowing that to date, the Indian "surgical strike" has been disputed?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The section on India keeps getting repeatedly added and deleted. I think it should be out because surgical strikes involving striking deep into the enemy territory, which wasn't the case in the India material. (However, it doesn't bother me that it is "disputed". Such disputations are common in Indo-Pakistani conflicts.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Indian border raid
Can someone please explain how an alleged cross border raid qualifies as a "Surgical strike" apart from the chest thumping Indian media who is convinced that it is no other reliable third party source agrees that it was one hence the tag. I wont remove the section as I am sure it will be readded. The main article itself is called cross border confrontation not a surgical strike so I am surprised users are unable to use their brain and realise it was not a surgical strike as many third party sources state. 82.132.238.167 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Nangparbat sock.

Too many sources dispute it ever happening and many others reject its claim of being a surgical strike. 82.132.238.167 (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Nangparbat sock.
 * Yes, please free to add other examples. I have reinstated the section with a better source. As for the POV tag, please follow the instructions at template:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

82.132.228.220 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Nangparbat sock.


 * I didn't add it and I don't have to justify anything. If you want it removed, then you better register an account and watch this page, and battle whoever wishes to add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been no proof from Indian side whatsoever about these surgical sites, so why are the fairytale like hypothesis considered a relevant piece to be used on wiki.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019
Please change '200 to 300' to '200 to 300 (Indian claim)' because there is no evidence this happened. The payloads dropped in an open field in which some trees were destroyed, and the site where India claims the terrorist camp was located has a school and no terrorist training camp. How can it be counted how many terrorists they have killed when there is no blood, no bodies and it is under the cover of darkness. Scottmitchell93 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm not able to see the current source since the article is behind a paywall, but assuming the article correctly summarizes the information in the source, then your issue is with the Wall Street Journal, not with Wikipedia. You would need to provide a reliable, published source that contradicts what was printed in the WSJ article in order to have a change considered here. I'll leave this request open for now, hopefully someone with access to read that article will be able to verify that the article correctly characterizes the source material. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss your edits here.
Discuss your edits here please. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave my response within few hours here. Busy at the moment. Regards Aman Goel (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, what you're wanting to add is decidely not an example of a surgical strike. The response by India has them claiming results and many other observers not seeing much at all happened.  Adding something here needs to have widespread consensus among neutral secondary sources that explicitly call it a surgical strike.   Ravensfire  (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of that, it was a non-military target and a non-military attack. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally agree on the suicide bombing - no question about that. I think it's the India retaliatory attack that's the intended "surgical strike" to be covered here.  Despite it really being not that at all.  Ravensfire  (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ravensfire, you are on a totally different page here. The line you are pushing is neither what India is saying, nor Pakistan, nor the International community. Please back up statements like "suicide bombing" with sources. Don't spread misinformation even more. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Are you talking about Pulwama suicide bombing here. Why? I am talking about the balakot incident. What are you talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My statement above "it was a non-military target and a non-military attack" was for Balakot, not Pulwama. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Ignore me here. :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to propose an improvised article for the section that would not have been picking up individual examples from Indo Pakistani engagements (which get attention being more popular) but instead just mentioning about similar operations in both India & Myanmar and not pushing into details like other two sections. There was a "military operation" against a "non military" target and not a non military action against non military one while the target was alleged to he sponsored by Pakistan. The Balakot air strike being airborne, actually fits the very definition of the surgical strike. Aman Goel (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The content "disputed" (what it is in most other cases too) here that doesn't make it under qualified to he mentioned as "example" and not analyzed conclusion. For my "framing" of sentence, I tried to finish same in one line and its my narrating style, it may be modified if doesn't sound appropriate. The operations which either by the definition or by the name they have been given could be included in India's section here would be Indian bombing of Dhaka, 2015 Indian Indo Myanmar cross border strike, 2016 Indian Line of Control strike, 2019 Balakot air strike and 2019 Indian Cross border operations in Myanmar. I don't think that article for last one has been created yet. A better comprehensive article could be redrafted with less words and more examples in internal links for India section. For me, I stepped back as soon as I realized "non military" action was mentioned in definition of operation in the article. Regards Aman Goel (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aman Goel, did you read the first press conference statement given by India? Doesn't it say in that "'pre-emptive, non-military' attack"? Whereas you are saying it is a military attack? So you disagree with the official Indian statement in this case? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need for misinterpretation of India's statement. It's termed as a pre emptive measure and termed as a "non military" action as the measure was against a non state actor by the military. The term "non military" here indicates that the state who carried out operation has hit against non state actors and not the state where the non state actors are residing in. Nevertheless, it was an offensive operation which involved Indian Air Force which is a part of India's armed forces. Besides operations like search, relief, rescue, escort and non military expeditions, no offensive operation by any military in world can qualify to be "non military". At least go through the Indian statement wholly and the current thread if not nuclear doctrines and military policies of India and Pakistan. Aman Goel (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aman Goel So in short you are disagreeing with the statement. Other than that I think your edit related to this page has been discussed and doesn't need to be elaborated anymore. If you want to discuss with other editors then please take it up with them to put back your quote. This talk page is not for a general discussion but rather only related to the article. Please discuss other issues on talk page of user if relevant to Wikipedia. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan : So in short you are disagreeing with the statement. Other than that I think your edit related to this page has been discussed and doesn't need to be elaborated anymore.
 * There is nothing in "short". I properly interpreted the statement for you that why taking it literally is self contradicting. You most certainly haven't read what I wrote before replying both of the times you responded, the reason why you gave one line response. As for "being discussed here earlier", there was no conclusion as far as I can see in the section and no contradiction regarding occurrence of event (though being "disputed" has little to do while mentioning the "example" for the section of a particular country). There is no "general discussion" in my response but completely relevant to this page as it includes "surgical strikes" not confined to Indo Pakistani Wars & conflicts but all the spectrum where India claims to have carried out such "surgical" operations. We have to understand that in Indian context (because India officially calls it "surgical strike"), surgical strikes refer to pre-emptive cross border raids against non state actors and not against state unlike in case of US-Iraq war. I will draft a new article maybe after a few hours for India and put it here for improvement. After that, the new article will completely replace the current content in India section. Aman Goel (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One more thing: 1. So you disagree with the official Indian statement in this case? 2. So in short you are disagreeing with the statement.


 * Sorry to say that but for above those kinds of response, they are mildly personal, baiting & judgmental and not analytical in anyway. It's repelling and destructive for any discussion as it may reflect your bias. My edit was removed multiple times not after any conclusion or analysis from any discussion but because a section of editors wanted to get it removed it being "disputed" content. And I'm still not being offered with any argumentative or explanatory discussion and straight rejection even after writing long and clear explanations/arguments. Aman Goel (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Think that I'm gonna edit something. Just don't straight revert it, modify instead as main articles in links will be better than an expanded article here. Aman Goel (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still adding an example that doesn't the widespread description of being a surgical strike in neutral sources. This is a general topic article, there shouldn't be "maybe" examples in here and that's what you are trying to add.  You really need to hold off making changes in the article until you discuss the changes here and get consensus for those changes.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still unable to get what people are saying? The "widespread" recognition against "neutral" sources if both terms can be defined. The "may be" argument isn't valid here as we are trying to fit it into definitions here. So was for the other strikes and even other sections of other countries. As no "neural source" explicitly mentioned Balakot strike has surgical strike, I didn't mention it with either. Instead, I mentioned only about aerial strikes just after an analyst's advice mentioned that operation needs to be airborne to be called surgical. Aman Goel (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The kind of text I used has perfectly been neutral clearly mentioning Indian media & establishment claiming the anti insurgent operation to be a surgical strik. It doesn't disqualify to make the part of example when the caution over the claiming party has already been mentioned too. There are plenty of cases in Wikipedia where stuff slightly deviating from the core definition is mentioned with the citation with the core stuff as we can't do our original research for creating new version. Aman Goel (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @DiplomatTesterMan read India in talk page section, specifically read Last edit on Indian surgical strike. Thecybergulf (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed all reference to India strikes from the article
I removed all reference to India airstrikes. First let me state that I consider myself as "neutral" in this conflict between the two countries. (I'm not from Pakistan nor India)

There is absolutely NO proof that these (past) strikes were a "surgical strike". Therefore they should NOT be used as an "example" in this article. The article is a general reference article, examples used here should be undisputed surgical strikes which is not the case with these strikes.

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the "proof" dispute has been explained and discussed in preceding section. However, anumber of "proofs" have been and arguments can be given in favour but we aren't here for that debate on that. Aman Goel (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this. Please state the reference where an international (neutral) source states that these attacks are “surgical strikes”. I would like to remove all references in this article about Indian and Pakistan strikes as long as there is no solid proof for this. kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had stated that the "cross border anti terror operations" to be described as "Surgical Strikes" by Indian media and establishment. Clearly, no "international" source was there for "terming" the operation. Hence, the special case was mentioned. The article I had changed/which got removed now, didn't disagree with me too and clearly mentions an analyst stating the nature of ground based cross border strikes against the contemporary one. The section most certainly covers "examples" and doesn't verify them. Hence the section which got removed, covered "examples" for a certain country, the examples which got popular coverage and had the reference of contemplating by a "neutral source" whether terming the event as surgical strike is correct or not. Simply wikipedia was supposed to cover most examples which had considerable coverage and then rejecting them if they qualify to be same or not so.
 * In case someone searches Google about "surgical strikes", the name by which 2016 Line of Control Strike, 2015 Indo Burmese border strike and 2019 Balakote airstrike are popular in juvenile, he won't get results at place. Thus the example, in case of its disqualification or in case of not complete qualification to be called a "surgical strike", is not covered and contradicted given its shortcomings beforehand in this main article, there are chances of inappropriate edits regarding this issue again (by other users). For me, I don't think I am going to touch the edit button of this page again. I'm tired explaining about same "proofs" and "disputes" repeatedly. I won't respond if someone writes again without reading my response.Aman Goel (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I do understand that you confirm there are no neutral sources to confirm these "surgical strikes". May be it is for the best to leave these claims (by India and Pakistan) out of this article since they are probably meant to be as "propaganda" (for the own side of the conflict). kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But you also removed The Economist which is a neutral source. Why?  M L talk 17:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source The Economist stated: "On September 29th India launched what an army spokesman called retaliatory “surgical strikes” against “terrorist launch-pads”. This comment is made NOT by a neutral observer. Therefore I reverted to remove the disputed content. kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

, please allow me to intervene. The STATUS QUO text that has put back was originally written by me (with slightly different wording). It is brief, and it points out that analysts don't agree with India's terminology. In an ideal world, I would agree with you that none of this needs to be there. But there are tons of what we normally consider RS that use the terminology, and there will be an endless stream of editors who will come to add it if we don't have anything on the topic. So I think it is best to leave it as it is, and block any further expansions that editors might want to do.

At a theoretical level, a "surgical strike" is supposed to mean an action that targets particular targets and avoids collateral damage. So, India's 2016 action would fit the bill by that definition. It is another matter that the term is more commonly applied to actions that strike deep inside another country's territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the India section. There are doubts about the 2016 "strike" ever taking place (see article in The Diplomat, 2016, which has a contrary view) and the 2019 strike being accurate.  Most US newspapers, certainly the New York Times or the Washington Post, question the Indian claims about the second strike's accuracy.  Most official Indian claims seem to be responses to critical accounts in some reliable foreign sources, which were then advertised by India's opposition parties, or other government critics.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2016 strike is now acknowledged by several sources. But there are doubts about whether it is worthy of being called a "surgical strike". My text reflected that. I don't have any strong attachment to it, but I think that, if we have nothing about the matter, we will have to sit here and police this page perennially. If there is somebody willing to do it, that is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My main issue with the examples being given is this is the main article for surgical strike. Any examples given here should be canonical examples that nobody would question.  There are several other good candidates to add from the US military - Bin Laden strike, attacks against Iraqi air defense / C3I systems before either gulf war, but ultimately you don't need everything.  This isn't "List of surgical strikes".  Both of the Indian examples have significant issues.  First and foremost - every source I've seen says "The Indian government has claimed ..."  That's nowhere near enough to consider a strong example.  The 2019 attack is even worse of an example with the rather strong questions from neutral sources about the attack. Neither example for India should be called a surgical strike in Wikipedia's voice, which makes it very questionable if it should be included here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Surgical strike by India
On 29 September 2016, India announced that it conducted "surgical strikes" against militant launch pads across the Line of Control in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, and inflicted "significant casualties".[11] Indian media reported the casualty figures variously from 35 to 70.[12][13][5] Shreyansh wikip (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read the MULTIPLE discussions above about exactly this strike who's nature is highly disputued.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Shreyansh wikip read India in talk page section, specifically read Last edit on Indian surgical strike. Thecybergulf (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war on Indian surgical strike.
Last edit on Indian surgical strike

I have been working on the history of South Asian history (Mainly Nepal, India and Pakistan), what I have figured out is that whenever there is talk of India - Pakistan the talk or argument becomes heated. So coming on the so-called "Surgical strike by India", All the edits contains POV(Point Of View) regarding India surgical strike whether it is in support or whether it is against the article. I have seen many POVs in the edit history.

So, From a third-person perspective, I won't be able to consider what Pakistani and Indian media says. Because in Wikipedia article related to Pakistan history and culture, etc, sources from Indian media is comfortably used to provide legit data. And in many India related wiki pages, I have seen many sources from Pakistani media or Pak-gov sites. But in this case, they both are accusing each other of providing wrong data. And just not in this case in many other cases like the Indo-Pak war, where the Pakistan government and media once said they didn't even fight the war after signing the instrumental surrender. And from the Indian side, there are many points hidden like in the Indo-China war media and gov coverage.

What I have concluded from all the research that I have done is that there was a "Surgical strike" and also there was not a "Surgical strike by India", And I have concluded this as per sources of BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, CNN Network and the Huffington Post. This signifies not only Indian and Pakistan media outlets are not reliable but they all are also because they all are contradicting each other in many facts and data points.

So, let me get you to the summary and please I don't want to be in an edit war. There is not enough information which is been provided by the Indian Government to believe that there was a surgical strike. Which outraged the media war between the two countries and worldwide also. But the matter of fact is that there wasn't any reliable data provided to deny the surgical strike done by India.

This leaves us with three options:

1. We should add "India's surgical strike" in the Example section and use sources that support or are in favour of India's Surgical Strike and ignore the data which is been against it.

2. We should remove and continuously remove "India's surgical strike" from the Example section and use sources that are denying the fact and ignore data that is in favour of "India's Surgical Strike".

3. We should do both, We should include both and leave it to the reader to decide if it is true or if it is wrong. And we will be just providing data not POVs and non-factual data.

If you are more towards the 3 options then I think the best edit will be this:

India
India announced/claims to conducted a cross-border surgical strike specifically on militant launch pads on 29th September 2016 in retaliation to the 2016 Uri attack and preventing attacks being planned by Pakistan-based militants. According to the announcement Indian special forces went up to 500 meters to 2 km across LoC to destroy terrorist launch pads in POK. Which was later denied by Pakistan.

Indian media reported the casualty figures variously from 35 to 70 terrorists and the death of 9 Pakistani army troops which Pakistan denies and was highly doubted by many media firms.

Pakistan accepted the deaths of two Pakistani soldiers and 9 wounded which has been denied by India. Pakistan announced that two of its soldiers were killed in cross-border shelling, not in a Surgical strike done by India. Pakistan also calimed that there wasn't any surgical strike.

As for now "2016 Indian surgical strike" is been unclear, due to the lack of facts and proof in support and against the "2016 Indian Surgical Strike". One side of the surgical strike by The Diplomat., Another side of the story by BBC.

That was all I wanted to say and I know if I add this, it will be deleted within seconds by both types of editiors which are in favor and against this. So Now I am leaving all this to you. And we should focus on providing data and information to the reader with no point of view and should not hide information from the reader. Thecybergulf (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem is most are very careful to attribute the claim to the Indian army, and nearly every source is putting quotes around surgical strike. There have also been serious questions raised about the claims made by India about the impact of the raid.  These examples should be widely recognized as surgical strikes, not with questions raised around them.  There are obviously great examples of surgical strikes that aren't included - capture of Bin Laden, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Raid at Cabanatuan, Operation Focus, Operation Opera.  That's 30 seconds of thinking.  I've got no doubt there are far better examples between India and Pakistan than a modern raid with disputed results.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article says, "A surgical strike is a military attack which is intended to damage only a legitimate military target, with no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities." The problem I see is that there is no reliable account of how this strike took place. There is very little third-party support for a commando-inflicted surgical strike, which is the Indian claim.  There is some third-party support for short-range missile or rocket attacks at the site, but that is not generally considered a surgical strike unless a country has the technology for it, which it is not clear India had in 2016.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, Fowler&fowler, I agree with you, yes there is a shortage of info on the 2016 Surgical Strike, but still, there are no reliable and trustworthy facts two dent claims of the 2016 surgical Strike. and I can see you lack in knowledge about the 2016 surgical Strike because there wasn't any "third-party support" in the 2016 Surgical Strike. and coming up to the technology used in the 2016 surgical Strike is like a "bullet" in comparison to Indian Military and Airforce technology that India was composed off in2016, according to many sources in Asia, India, and China exclusively has Technology of public-based manufacturing from a bullet to Atomic Bombs and India rank 4th globally in terms of military power and technology after China, which was due to arms race started in Asia specifically between India and China in the 1960s, show the points you raised was only your believes and your point of you and I totally respect that but the point is these all just believe and Wikipedia needs facts so the facts are

"India claimed to do surgical Strike against militant launch pads across the Line of Control in Pakistani-administered Kashmir which was denied by Pakistan",

"Indian media reported that Special forces have killed about 35 to 75 terrorist and 9 Pakistani military troops"

"Pakistan denied India's claim on 2016 surgical Strike and said that two troops died due to cross border firing, not in surgical strike done by India"

these are just a few facts and we are not here to judges or to decide India's claims are true or not or Pakistan's claims are true or not, we are just Wikipedia the editors and our sole purpose is to provide information and facts and not point-of-use conspiracy theories and not a what anyone believes or what anyone doesn't believe. so I will still repeat my words:

Last edit on Indian surgical strike

I have been working on the history of South Asian history (Mainly Nepal, India, and Pakistan), what I have figured out is that whenever there is talk of India - Pakistan the talk or argument becomes heated. So coming on the so-called "Surgical strike by India", All the edits contain POV(Point Of View) regarding India surgical strike whether it is in support or whether it is against the article. I have seen many POVs in the edit history.

So, From a third-person perspective, I won't be able to consider what Pakistani and Indian media says. Because in Wikipedia articles related to Pakistan history and culture, etc, sources from Indian media are comfortably used to provide legit data. And in many India-related wiki pages, I have seen many sources from Pakistani media or Pak-gov sites. But in this case, they both are accusing each other of providing wrong data. And just not in this case in many other cases like the Indo-Pak war, where the Pakistan government and media once said they didn't even fight the war after signing the instrumental surrender. And from the Indian side, there are many points hidden like in the Indo-China war media and gov coverage.

What I have concluded from all the research that I have done is that there was a "Surgical strike" and also there was not a "Surgical strike by India", And I have concluded this as per sources of BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, CNN Network, and The Huffington Post. This signifies not only Indian and Pakistan media outlets are not reliable but they all are also because they all are contradicting each other in many facts and data points.

So, let me get you to the summary and please I don't want to be in an edit war. There is not enough information which is been provided by the Indian Government to believe that there was a surgical strike. Which outraged the media war between the two countries and worldwide also. But the matter of fact is that there wasn't any reliable data provided to deny the surgical strike done by India.

This leaves us with three options:

1. We should add "India's surgical strike" in the Example section and use sources that support or are in favor of India's Surgical Strike and ignore the data which is been against it.

2. We should remove and continuously remove "India's surgical strike" from the Example section and use sources that are denying the fact and ignore data that is in favor of "India's Surgical Strike".

3. We should do both, We should include both and leave it to the reader to decide if it is true or if it is wrong. And we will be just providing data not POVs and non-factual data.

If you are towards option 3 then I think the best option is what I have provided above. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * sorry I was using my phone that's why there are too many grammatical errors. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this page should be for generally accepted examples of a surgical strike. Putting up an example where the country that carried out the strike said it was, the target says it wasn't and there's very little outside support is NOT a good example what should be included here.  The sources attribute the claim as coming from the Indian army and put it in quotes.  That's not a good sign, it means the sources question it, but know they need to include the claim for completeness. The alterative is to put EVERY example where the attacker claims it was a surgical strike, even when that's highly contested.  That would be a failure on OUR part as editors. Yes, the examples list should be expanded, but it should be with strong examples of what is a surgical strike. This is just not such an example.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with Ravensfire. There is a reason that the version in place has been the default for South Asia for six years.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)