Talk:2016 Indian Line of Control strike

Re [1]

With this edit, I removed a name which wasn't supported by the cited source. I guess that name was added by someone who wanted to add the officers involved in the surgical strikes. If that's the case, then that should be done properly by using articles like this one & this one. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to do it properly, but not in the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, my concern was entirely related to the listing of the aforementioned name(s) in the infobox, and I agree with you that they shouldn't be there. BTW, thanks for the prompt response. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Quint report 8 days before official announcement

It was the first public report to mention surgical strikes being conducted.

It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.76.110 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Surgical Strike India 2016" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Surgical Strike India 2016. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ravensfire (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity

It is outright POV pushing to treat Pakistani and Indian claims equally credible with regards to this subject.

I tried to balance the lead per WP:NPOV here by using WP:RS but my edit was unnecessarily reverted by Gotitbro without a valid reason.[2]

No independent sources consider Indian claim of "surgical strike" to be valid at all. The first paragraph of the lead must make it very clear just like 2019 Balakot airstrikes has done.

I am also inviting the most experienced editors of this article to share their opinion; MBlaze Lightning, Mar4d and EkoGraf. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I would not consider biding for further discussion on contentious topics unnecessary. Also cannot really apply whatever consensus was reached for one article as is to another. Both the sources added in your edits do clarify that a strike did take place only its exact nature is left upto debate. The Economist:

But just when Indian sceptics began to wonder aloud whether their government was telling the truth, Pakistan sheepishly admitted that it had captured an Indian soldier on its side of the border, thus hinting that there had, after all, been some sort of incursion. [...] Instead of the resolute act of vengeance deep behind enemy lines described by Indian jingoists, it appears that small teams of Indian commandos had slipped across the line to strike at safe houses believed to be used by Islamist guerrillas. The number killed was estimated at a dozen or fewer, rather than the 38-50 initially claimed by India. None of those killed were Pakistani army personnel. And since the Pakistani government has no wish to inflame domestic opinion and so be forced to escalate matters, it preferred to pretend that nothing had happened.

BBC:

Despite the use of the term "surgical strikes", the Indians definitely did not airdrop commandos to hit "launching pads of militants" inside Pakistani-held territory, or conduct ground assaults deep into the Pakistan-administered side. But they did cross the Line of Control (LoC), in some cases by more than a kilometre, to hit nearby Pakistani border posts. Police officials on the Pakistani side privately concede that such a ground assault did occur in the Madarpur-Titrinot region of Poonch sector, west of Srinagar, where a Pakistani post was destroyed and one soldier killed. In Leepa valley to the north, locals said that the Indians crossed the LoC and set up their guns on ridges directly overlooking the village of Mundakali.

Perhaps a better lead is reuired whereby surgical strike is moved from the lead sentence to the body/later in the lead and its characterization as such challenged therein. But an attack did take place, putting it as a "claim" right there in the beginning of the lead would be misleading. Gotitbro (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Strike? They are just skirmishes. The claim of "surgical strike" is false so far and that's what the first paragraph of the lead needs to highlight. If you are not willing to dispute the surgical strike and somehow get around the skrimishes then there would be no need of this article since we have 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Editorkamran (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The claim that it wasnt a surgical strike is not NPOV, its your opinion. It certainly fits the 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 per multiple RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Its not a surgical strike. I am stating facts. See Surgical strike and Talk:Surgical strike that why this article is not listed there.

Nobody is doubting the fact that the claim of "surgical strike" was false. It was false. India had acknowledged that UN mission also found the claim of 'surgical strike' to be false.[3][4] There is also unanimous consensus among reliable sources that no 'surgical strike' happened.[5][6][7] Editorkamran (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources you provide dont back up your claims. You are clearly misrepresenting even the UN report.

The didnt "directly" witness any firefights, does not mean they didnt happen. And Indian govt, in the headline of your own source, "trashed" the claims, not acknowledge them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

All of those sources confirm that India is misleading with their claim of "surgical strike". Because they "directly" or "indirectly" witnesses nothing it further indicates that the claim of surgical strike was false. Indian government acknowledged that acknowledged that UN mission also found the claim of 'surgical strike' to be false that's why it responded to their finding. Editorkamran (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, this article is about an attack not a statement of claims or a controversy; the main feature of such articles is to define the attack with whatever statements as to its nature taken up in the body et. al. If "strike" is what is deemed objectionable then you can always start a move req or a merge req (into the skirmishes article) if this is deemed to not have standalone value but the article's purpose will be poor served by simply lead fixing. Gotitbro (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. The article starts with the sentence "On 29 September 2016, India announced that it conducted surgical strikes against militant launch pads..." This article is about the debunked claim of surgical strike which needs to be described as false in the very first paragraph of the article. I am not the one who is evading that concern, its you who is. Editorkamran (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That is why I have already stated above that the term "surgical strike" can be moved off the lead which I pointed no objection towards, further pointing that even a move discussion can be started if need be. But this article is about an attack that did happen in whatever form construed; it did pass an AfD for the same reason (featuring the same sources that have been brought here) and nothing significant has changed since to change the entire characterization of the article. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Its an accurate statement, the changes you propose would be highly POV. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not accurate because no surgical strike happened in the first place. Editorkamran (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Editorkamran is correct in some respects; we have reliably sourced information about exactly what happened, and not presenting that information in the lead isn't appropriate. However, there is a degree of belligerence to the above conversation that isn't going to make consensus possible. I suggest leaving the first sentence as it is, and focusing on crafting an additional sentence following the competing claims that clarify what independent sources think happened. The first sentence as it stands is in fact completely accurate; India did announce that it had conducted a strike. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• As someone who rescued this article 5 or 6 years ago, I can definitely say that this event was indeed a hoax and the starting para of the article will have to highlight it. I am restoring Editorkamran's edit. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Get a consensus here before making unilateral edits, all of Kamran's points have been addressed above. With all three editors not agreeing in the very least for his lead sentencing. And I am not seeing any edits from your account on this article (besides a single revert and during which time the lead read the same as it does now), so I am not sure what 'rescuing' you are referring to.

  Regardless the article survived an AfD with the exact same hoax arguments and we needn't bother with them repeatedly. You are free to open another AfD or RfC, but broad strokes and claims of WP:HOAX are not going to pass unilaterally. Gotitbro (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources accurately call the entire claim to be misleading. You should stop edit warring because your reverts are coming off as mere POV pushing now. Editorkamran (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not the only disagreeing with you here, two other editors see no issue with the current lead. I have tried to reason with you in having no issue with removing "surgical strike" from the lead. Please do not handwave claims of POV and hoax as a nothing burger, open an RfC if you must for the lead. This is a just a re-emergence of the points raised in the AfD nothing new, open a new one if you must. But a clear broad consensus would be needed to shift the article away from as it emerged from the AFD. Gotitbro (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Gotitbro, I count it as two editors including myself in support of the Editorkamran and 2 including you opposed while 1 is leaning towards the edits of Editorkamran. Yes the surgical strike was a hoax and only pro-BJP sources claim it happened. By removing the said info you are also only supporting BJP propaganda. Don't do it. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no horse here, better be mindful of your personal attacks of political association, lest you be taken to ANI. You still have not answered what did you "rescue" above, and the fact that the article read the same at the time of your edits then. Even if your own analysis of editor contention is taken in that is a deadlock i.e. not a consensus.

Anyhow, since you are unwilling to start an RfC. I will be now, also pinging past participants @CapnJackSp and Vanamonde93:. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I had rescued this article. See the earliest edits and also the AfD. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have changed your username or used a different account do come clean because besides a comment on the AfD you have not made any edit beyond the single revert linked above (claims of rescue without any specification being highly dubious, let alone the fact that the article stood the same as it does now when you made that revert). Gotitbro (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In which world you could clearly ignore this edit againd and again? Raymond3023 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That is the revert I am referring to, how a bare removal of notices amounts to salvaging a whole article would not be clear to anyone. You also fail to address the fact that the article's lead read the exact same then which you are now suddenly opposing. Gotitbro (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the lead para

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing RfC for now in light of comments for bettering it by Vanamonde93 below. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---

What should the lead para read like? Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• There is contention regarding the lead with some editors stating that 'claim' is the apt word treating this strike/attack as a WP:HOAX, a claim which I note did not stand up in the AfD for this article in 2018. The article prior to the recent lead changes recently read as such "India announced that it conducted surgical strikes" which has been changed to "Indian Government claimed". Particular contention is with the mention of the technical military term "surgical strike" for which additional verbiage has also recently been added to the lead: "Independent researchers found Indian claims of a 'surgical strike' to be misleading." From the current lead it would appear to treat this incident as a nothingburger but from the sources it is clear that some attack did take place across the border. For this reason I seek your opinion as to the following lead that should be instated:

• a1) The current lead with the recent changes
• b2) The previous lead (which has stood since the time of the AfD)
• c2) Moving the contentious parts from the lead para to later in the lead which would read something like: "On 29 September 2016, skirmishes took place across the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. The Indian government claimed that it conducted surgical strikes against militant launch pads in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and inflicted "significant casualties". Pakistan rejected India's claim, and instead claimed that Indian troops did not cross the Line of Control and had only skirmished with Pakistani troops at the border." This presents first the established fact of a skirmish and proceeding to state the rest incorporating recent contentions.

The last part that needs consensus is whether to include the "misleading" part, the sources listed for it ([8], [9]) do not say so and only weight the narrative on both sides. I think this should be removed as we already mention both the sides in the lead per the souces. Please do comment whether to:

• a2) Keep the recent additions
• b2) Move it down in the lead or body (away from lead para)
• c2) Remove (as per previous lead since the time of the AfD)

Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• For goodness sake, close this before it becomes a train-wreck. For an RfC to be useful, the proposed change needs to be workshopped such that people don't get stuck supporting or opposing on grammar and clarity alone. Also, it needs to be proposed as a clearly-worded question. There is no clearly worded question here, the proposed change isn't well-written, and nobody uninvolved is going to bother with an RfC this confusing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have not been involved in a lot of RfCs so deficiencies might be there for trying to be neutral (per the RfC guidelines), this was just a way to get more comments on the issue stuck at deadlock.

  Perhaps you can suggest an alternative or a reworking of this. But I don't really see an issue here, if enough participants aren't there for the density of it so be it but having advertised this at different forums already I think a closing this soon would be hasty. Gotitbro (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Opening it was hasty. Withdrawing it would be respecting the community's time. I'm happy to kick off some workshopping in a different section, but I'm not going to waste my time on it if this remains open. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (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.

[Workshop] Lead/RfC

@Vanamonde93 I have closed the above RfC per your comments above. Please do help reach a workable lead for the article here. The main problem with this that I want to resolve is to present what the event is in the first place rather than proceed with claims/counterclaims from the get go. My proposal for this would be, as stated in the RfC, something like this: "On 29 September 2016, skirmishes took place across the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. The Indian government claimed that it conducted surgical strikes against militant launch pads in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and inflicted "significant casualties". Pakistan rejected India's claim, and instead claimed that Indian troops did not cross the Line of Control and had only skirmished with Pakistani troops at the border." That is a reworking with at least the first line proceeding with some statement of fact.

I would also like to know your opinion on where/if to put this in the lead/article at all: "Independent researchers found Indian claims of a 'surgical strike' to be misleading."

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Make it like 2019 strike article. Only facts and no opinions. Editorkamran (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Then do make suggestions for the same. Not sure what opinions are being laden here, the article as it stands does not even begin with a statement of basic facts for that matter which is what the above proposal of a single line insertion would make. Gotitbro (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Both lead and infobox must say the surgical strike never took place. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Rather indefensible position to take. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Only if you want to believe in fake news that it happened. Show independent sources which confirm your claim. Editorkamran (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it never happened. That's why no foreign press was allowed to question. Only BJP's propaganda claimed otherwise. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of you do realize that casting aspersions and off-the-wall accusations of "fake news" and "propaganda" are the least likeliest ways of resolving content disputes which from your WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments does not seem to be a thing that you want to achieve. Gotitbro (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Unless any of you want a quick block or ban, I strongly suggest everyone involved quit edit-warring and focus on this discussion. I find the sentence "Independent researchers found Indian claims of a 'surgical strike' to be misleading" to be unsatisfactory, for several reasons. First, I believe there are enough independent sources, and enough agreement among them, that we don't need the in-text attribution; we can describe the incident in Wikipedia's voice. Second, "misleading" is an acceptable summary, but vague; we can make explicit the sequence of events that experts agree on. Third, saying a "surgical strike never took place" with no further qualification is a non-starter; experts say the surgical strike claim is misleading, and also the target that was hit, but nobody denies a cross-border incursion took place. The lead should clarify that.
  The more I read it, the more it seems a lot of the article is unsatisfactory; the body still uncritically repeats Indian claims, for instance. The issues aren't going to be resolved by adding a sentence to the lead. The article needs to be framed by non-partisan reliable sources, scholarly sources for preference; and only necessary detail filled in with news media from both countries involved. Such a rewrite is a large task, and I certainly don't have the time to do it alone, but if others here are interested I would pitch in.
  Until then, I would suggest framing the lead in the following manner. Please feel free to suggest improvements or alternatives, but I ask that you not edit the proposed draft directly, as that invariably leads to confusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

On 29 September 2016, teams of Indian Army commandos crossed the Line of Control into Pakistani-administered Kashmir to attack targets up to a kilometer within territory held by Pakistan. The raid occurred ten days after four militants had attacked an Indian army outpost at Uri on 18th September 2016 in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and killed 19 soldiers. Estimates of casualties from India's cross-border attack varied widely, with figures of 12 to 70 being reported. The Pakistani government eventually acknowledged the deaths of two soldiers and injuries to nine, while one Indian soldier was captured.

The Indian Government termed the attack a surgical strike against "militant launch pads" in Pakistani territory, and claimed to have inflicted "significant casualties". Pakistan rejected India's claim, and instead initially claimed that Indian troops did not cross the Line of Control and had only skirmished with Pakistani troops at the border, although it subsequently admitted to having captured an Indian soldier. Pakistani security sources reported that at least eight Indian soldiers were killed in the exchange, and one was captured. India confirmed that one of its soldiers was in Pakistani custody, but denied that it was linked to the incident or that any of its soldiers had been killed. Pakistan said India was hiding its casualties.

Independent analysts found Indian claims of a surgical strike to be misleading, as no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. Analysts wrote that the term "surgical strike" was used to portray the incident in a positive and nationalist light to the Indian public. The Indian news media uncritically reported the Indian government's version of events, often discouraging skepticism of the "surgical strike": television coverage was militant and nationalist in nature.

Media outlets noted that the details regarding the attack remained unclear. India's announcement on 29 September marked the first time that the government had publicly acknowledged its forces crossing the Line of Control. In the succeeding days and months, India and Pakistan continued to exchange fires along the border in Kashmir, resulting in dozens of military and civilian casualties on both the sides.

Collapsing, not going to reach consensus: reinstating original above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Revised version: On 29 September 2016, teams of Indian Army commandos crossed the Line of Control into Pakistani-administered Kashmir to attack targets up to a kilometer within territory held by Pakistan. The raid occurred ten days after four militants had attacked an Indian army outpost at Uri on 18th September 2016 in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and killed 19 soldiers. Estimates of casualties from India's cross-border attack varied widely, with figures of 12 to 70 being reported. The Pakistani government eventually acknowledged the deaths of two soldiers and injuries to nine, while one Indian soldier was captured. The Indian Government termed the attack a surgical strike against "militant launch pads" in Pakistani territory, and claimed to have inflicted "significant casualties". Pakistan rejected India's claim, and instead initially claimed that Indian troops did not cross the Line of Control and had only skirmished with Pakistani troops at the border, although it subsequently admitted to having captured an Indian soldier. Pakistani security sources reported that at least eight Indian soldiers were killed in the exchange, and one was captured. India confirmed that one of its soldiers was in Pakistani custody, but denied that it was linked to the incident or that any of its soldiers had been killed. Pakistan said India was hiding its casualties. Independent analysts found that the Indian government substantially exaggerated the scope of the military action: no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. Analysts consequently questioned the description of the action as a "surgical strike", writing that it was used to portray the incident in a positive and nationalist light to the Indian public. The Indian news media uncritically reported the Indian government's version of events, often discouraging skepticism of the "surgical strike": television coverage was militant and nationalist in nature. Media outlets noted that the details regarding the attack remained unclear. India's announcement on 29 September marked the first time that the government had publicly acknowledged its forces crossing the Line of Control. In the succeeding days and months, India and Pakistan continued to exchange fires along the border in Kashmir, resulting in dozens of military and civilian casualties on both the sides.

I don't see any major objections with this, though the body would also need to be subsequently expanded to accomodate this lengthening of the lead. But we can get there after resolving this. Gotitbro (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your suggestion for the lead is much better than what's currently there. Good job!

After reading the BBC's unbiased analysis, which seems to be the fairest take on the matter, I concluded that there isn't enough solid evidence to fully support either side's claims. It suggests there's likely some middle ground. This analysis doesn't definitively support or disprove the idea of "surgical strikes." So, it might be a good idea to avoid the sentence "Independent analysts found Indian claims of a surgical strike to be misleading" in the lead. Instead, we could mention how they found issues with the claims from both sides. Wrythemann (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I find this a far better summary of the sources than previously.

Though, reading the BBC. commentary on the usage of the word "surgical strike" seems questionable;

"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." (quoting wikipedia, not an RS, I know).

The general definition does fit the claims - I dont see why they took issue with the fact it wasnt airborne, or deep strike. Neither is necessary. By oncluding those criticisms, we may be painting an incorrect picture of what a surgical strike even is. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

But we're not making claims about what a surgical strike is, we're reporting what analysts looking at this incident said. They took issue with the claim, for the reasons given: I personally couldn't care less what the precise definition was. Kaura and Singh both discuss that issue, and The Economist does as well, though to a lesser degree. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"Independent analysts found Indian claims of a surgical strike to be misleading" has a much broader purvey than their criticisms regarding the terminology, and even the terminology used by them is questionable.

If you did want to include the criticism of the terminology, it could be expressed as thus by replacing the first sentece of the second para:

"Some independent analysts have criticised the usage of the term "surgical strikes", pointing to the fact that no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory."

It retains the material, ut more precise Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that's an inappropriate reading of the sources. They are not make points about language, they are saying the Indian government made greatly exaggerated claims about the military action, most obviously by the usage of the term "surgical strike". And as best as I can tell this reading is uniform across independent sources dating from later than October 2016; do you have any international source not saying this after that time? We could replace the sentence with one about how the Indian government exaggerated its claims; this is also supported by the sources; but I suspect the bare-bones version would be more palatable to people here. Also: @Editorkamran and Raymond3023: having reverted the lead more than once, your participation here is expected. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"Some independent analysts have criticised the usage of the term "surgical strikes", pointing to the fact that no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. They also pointed out that casualty figures were likely a dozen or less, much lower than the Indian government's claim."

I'm not really concerned by what's more palatable, but what is more accurate. Better to be specific than vague.

BTW, I havent read up on the source from Kaura, though this is the summary from The BBC, Singh and The Economist. If there are relevant portions from it, could you quote them? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That is still weaselly: "some" is terrible prose unless we're presenting a contrary view. Neither you nor anyone else has shown that independent commentators supported (or did anything but challenge) India's claims. The sources are fundamentally saying India's claims as to the extent of its military action was exaggerated. If you would rather say that, I'm fine with it. Note: the Kaura source was an error to a different article in the same journal; it is Sasikumar that is the intended citation. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I had been using "some" as the criticism was 3-4 sources which in comparison to the volumes published about the incident was "some". If thats an issue, no problem removing it.

"Independent analysts have criticised the usage of the term "surgical strikes", pointing to the fact that no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. They also pointed out that casualty figures were likely a dozen or less, much lower than the Indian government's claim."

The only claims they say to be exaggerated are the depth of strikes and casualty figures, which this should cover. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Is this fine? Both other respondents didnt answer your question, but I think this fits their concerns also. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The text still emphasizes the disagreement over terminology over the facts of exaggerated claims. I've offered a revised proposal that addresses this. If folks are generally in agreement here, we can move forward without an RfC, but see my comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Now the section is outright inaccurate - It seems to suggest the Indian government claimed air raids or deep strikes. It claimed nothing of the sort. The reference about "Surgical Strike" made by the articles cited was clearly over the terminology itself. Even the BBC, which is the most critical, states

Despite the use of the term "surgical strikes", the Indians definitely did not airdrop commandos to hit "launching pads of militants" inside Pakistani-held territory, or conduct ground assaults deep into the Pakistan-administered side.

I think that by expanding the section to only write of analysts targeting Indian claims also misrepresents their positions, since they also say that the Pakistani government was lying and the Indians did cross the border and hit targets. The Economist also directs some ire at "Indian Jingoists", not the Indian government, so theres that as well.

Im fine with this as the base for the third para

Independent analysts have criticised the usage of the term "surgical strikes", pointing to the fact that no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. They also pointed out that casualty figures were likely a dozen or less, much lower than the Indian government's claim.^{[1][2][3][12]}Further, they noted that the term "surgical strike" was used to portray the incident in a positive and nationalist light to the Indian public.^[2][3][12] The Indian news media uncritically reported the Indian government's version of events, often discouraging skepticism of the "surgical strike": television coverage was militant and nationalist in nature.^[3][13]

Beyond this, if there is a minor issue with wording or semantics, I would be open to discuss these changes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've struck the revised proposal over legitimate concerns about how the Indian position is described, but your version is a non-starter; it frames the entire commentary as being about terminology, which it patently is not. Please go read the more extended commentaries; the BBC is most certainly not the most critical source.

I would be okay framing it as follows: "Independent analysts pointed out that the Indian government's casualty figures were considerably exaggerated, with the true number being a dozen or fewer. They also criticised the usage of the term "surgical strike", pointing to the fact that no use of air transport was made, and the incursions did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. Analysts wrote that the term "surgical strike" was used to portray the incident in a positive and nationalist light to the Indian public. The Indian media..." Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a good proposal. Wrythemann (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am also fine with this proposal. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on this and Gotitbro's agreement above, and the last of further response below, I will install this version of the lead. Discussion can continue, of course, but hopefully most people agree it's an improvement over what's currently there, and we can avoid a very messy RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think the first paragraph on the lead must clarify that India's claim was misleading with regards to the operation and the 'surgical strike'. Editorkamran (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's not actually saying anything about the proposed text. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Editorkamran: I strongly disagree. Vanamonde's proposed lead already dedicates the entire third paragraph on discrediting the Indian government's claims. Are you still unsatisfied? We must remember that the article's primary objective is to provide an account of the incident as reported by credible sources, not to emphasize the misleading characterization by Indian authorities. Wrythemann (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

• I would too prefer a version that calls out the false Indian surgical strike claim on very first para of the lead otherwise like Editorkamran too said, this whole article becomes unnecessary since 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes already exists. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you and Editorkamran have issues with the proposal, you really need to suggest modifications, or make a cogent proposal of your own. At the moment you've both edit-warred over the content without offering an alternative. If you disagree with this proposal, and don't offer an alternative, we will need to launch an RFC with what we have, meaning you will be stuck with a version you dislike in any case. The notion that this article is unnecessary is nonsensical; the volume of coverage about the incident is enormous, regardless of the scope of what actually occurred. A spinoff to the border skirmishes article is necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• General comment I recognize that the text above is likely too critical of the Indian government for some editors, and not critical enough for others. But if everyone continues to oppose a proposal on those grounds, we will be stuck with the present text, and further edit-warring over poorly-worded changes is not unlikely to result in sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• POV issues aside, there are two clarity/logical issues with the following text: "Estimates of casualties from India's cross-border attack varied widely, with figures of 12 to 70 being reported.[3][2] The Pakistani government eventually acknowledged the deaths of two soldiers and injuries to nine, while one Indian soldier was captured.. The first is that does the 12 to 70 casualties refer only to the dead or does it also include injured? Does it include only claimed Pakistani casualties or also claimed Indian casualties. Both should be clarified. Secondly, if it refers to only Pakistani dead, then saying "figures of 12 to 70" is directly contradicted by the next sentence, where we list Pakistani claims of only 2 dead. Either we give the entire range in the first paragraph "figures ranging from 2 dead to 70 dead", or we attribute the claims: "Indian claimed X Pakistanis killed, Pakistani acknowledged 2 dead, and third party sources gave Y-Z dead." VR _talk 18:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The Pakistanis accepted 11 casualties, so the 12 figure as cited doesnt seem an issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the minimum number is 11, then we should write 11, not 12.VR _talk 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's fairly clear that both government estimates differ from any reasonable estimate of the real figure, but the independent sources that I have read don't actually report precise figures; they only point out the inconsistencies in the government figures and give ballpark estimates. Further suggestions on how to finesse the wildly contradictory information are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  What is the official Indian claim as to how many Pak soldiers were killed? Indian newspapers say 2-9, but what does the government say? If the official Indian claim is 2 Pak soldiers dead, then that is identical to the Pakistani claim. Likewise, it seems on the Pakistani side, unnamed government sources claimed 8 Indian soldiers dead, but a retired Pakistani Major General claimed 14 dead[10]. I would propose something like this: Estimates of the casualties vary widely. Both sides acknowledged two Pakistani soldiers were killed and one Indian soldier was captured. Pakistan additionally claimed 8 Indian soldiers killed, which India denied; India additionally claimed 35-40 militants killed, which Pakistan denied. The figures on the wounded, IMO, can be discussed lower in the article. I'm also open to other ideas for wording.VR _talk 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  That formulation is good from a clarity perspective, but I'm unaware of either government stating figures so plainly; both went to great lengths to obfuscate the true number of casualties. The Indian government initially claimed the targets were militants, rather than soldiers, after all. Perhaps the problem is the word "estimates"; because this conflates good-faith estimates made by independent commentators with wildly inaccurate government statements from both sides. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Id say the biggest issue with this is that instead of the current version, which focuses on the speculation, this retains the speculations but attributes poorly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

infobox result

• Can we have infobox updated for now to state only facts? It should be just like the page on Balakot strike. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Raymond3023, I have just done that with my latest edit on this page. I concur that in view of the time that has passed since the incident and the independent critique that we have had from some of the newspapers like the BBC all along, the infobox should cater for definitive statements about events that transpired during the course of the border strike than clutter itself with nationalistic claims. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This is much better but still not a complete picture. I would prefer "Cross-border firing between India and Pakistan" because both had casualties of almost same number. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Would be pretty inaccurate. "Cross border firing" is usually used when both parties sit on their own side of the border, and shoot across it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a connotation the expression evokes, true. But at the same time I'm willing to entertain the proposition proffered by Raymond3023 in the hope that we can come to a consensus on the use of a more felicitous expression for the whole chain of events. There were incursions across the LoC by Indian units but at the same time they were pretty marginal and confined -- about a kilometre or so at places where they succeeded -- and even foiled and thwarted by Pakistani troops at places where they didn't succeed. Then India had casualties of its own and a soldier it claimed strayed into the Pakistani side only to be taken a captive. That the whole episode was unjustifiably aggrandized and embroidered with the "surgical strike" misnomer by the ruling political party in India for deriving political capital and a hysterical and docile media acting at the instance of the government to stir up sentiments in the country is at least the major reason, if not the only reasom, why the independent, international media even critiques it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There has been (fair) criticism of the boastful characterisation of the actions. But when troops crossed the border and struck some targets, it would be wrong to call it just cross border firing, especially in the context of India-Pakistan, where actual cross border firings are very regular and often ignored. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)