This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Indian Line of Control strike article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 utilitiesper multiple RS. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 20:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
What should the lead para read like? Gotitbro ( talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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. [1] [2] [3] 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. [4] 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. [5]
The Indian Government termed the attack a surgical strike against "militant launch pads" in Pakistani territory, and claimed to have inflicted "significant casualties". [6] 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, [7] although it subsequently admitted to having captured an Indian soldier. [2] Pakistani security sources reported that at least eight Indian soldiers were killed in the exchange, and one was captured. [8] [9] 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. [10] Pakistan said India was hiding its casualties. [11]
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. [1] [2] [3] [12] Analysts wrote 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]
Media outlets noted that the details regarding the attack remained unclear. [14] [15] India's announcement on 29 September marked the first time that the government had publicly acknowledged its forces crossing the Line of Control. [4] [16] 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:
|
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.
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)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]
"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)
References
CNN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Haider2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NDTV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Indian Line of Control strike article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 utilitiesper multiple RS. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 20:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
What should the lead para read like? Gotitbro ( talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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. [1] [2] [3] 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. [4] 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. [5]
The Indian Government termed the attack a surgical strike against "militant launch pads" in Pakistani territory, and claimed to have inflicted "significant casualties". [6] 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, [7] although it subsequently admitted to having captured an Indian soldier. [2] Pakistani security sources reported that at least eight Indian soldiers were killed in the exchange, and one was captured. [8] [9] 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. [10] Pakistan said India was hiding its casualties. [11]
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. [1] [2] [3] [12] Analysts wrote 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]
Media outlets noted that the details regarding the attack remained unclear. [14] [15] India's announcement on 29 September marked the first time that the government had publicly acknowledged its forces crossing the Line of Control. [4] [16] 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:
|
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.
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)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]
"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)
References
CNN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Haider2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NDTV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)