Talk:Surgical strike

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: May I also add far better examples of real surgical strikes are available so the insistence of adding a disputed border raid painted over as a surgical strike by the Indian Media and government is pretty stupid. 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Please feel free to justify the addition of an event not even described as a surgical strike by many third party sources this border raid is undue on a article about precise full on surgical strikes. 82.132.228.220 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: India section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: India

message: 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)
replies: text: May I also add far better examples of real surgical strikes are available so the insistence of adding a disputed border raid painted over as a surgical strike by the Indian Media and government is pretty stupid. 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Please feel free to justify the addition of an event not even described as a surgical strike by many third party sources this border raid is undue on a article about precise full on surgical strikes. 82.132.228.220 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Alleged Indian border raid 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: , please read the MULTIPLE discussions above about exactly this strike who's nature is highly disputued. Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Shreyansh wikip read India in talk page section, specifically read Last edit on Indian surgical strike. Thecybergulf (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgical strike by India 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: sorry I was using my phone that's why there are too many grammatical errors. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree entirely with Ravensfire.  There is a reason that the version in place has been the default for South Asia for six years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on Indian surgical strike. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: sorry I was using my phone that's why there are too many grammatical errors. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree entirely with Ravensfire.  There is a reason that the version in place has been the default for South Asia for six years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: India