| Revision as of 12:56, 18 October 2011 editRenamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs)68,802 edits →Pakistani partial naval success ??: response to Multiple edits and EDIT WARRING← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:35, 22 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,689,927 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Pakistan}}, {{WikiProject India}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (175 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WP India|class= Start|auto=yes|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|action1=AFD |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
|action1date=21 November 2005 |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Operation Dwarka |
|
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2014-09-08|otd1oldid=624631619|otd2date=2021-09-07|otd2oldid=1042499302 |
|
| style="text-align: center" | |
|
|
|
}} |
|
This article was nominated for ''''']''''' on ]. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
The result of the discussion was '''keep'''. <!-- please do not add bolding to '''keep''' here: this breaks many places where it is already specified --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=High}} |
|
An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Mid}} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Indian-task-force=yes|Pakistani=yes|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|class = Start |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|Indian-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| algo=old(90d) |
|
|Pakistani=yes |
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Operation Dwarka/Archive %(counter)d |
|
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|
| counter=1 |
|
|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=75K |
|
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|B-Class-2=no |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=4 |
|
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
== WikiProject class rating== |
|
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. ] 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
For the past few days some IP puppets have been trying to edit article without proper citation. The only active link available in the source section of article contains details of 2 first hand accounts of the extent of damage done during the attack and a further link to a Pakistani site which gives details about how attack was carried out with little resistance. There is no mention of destruction of radar center in first hand reviews of damage done or in Pakistani sources. The Pakistani source calls the attack a success as far as firing required amount of shells without any resistance is concerned. This does not mean that the objectives of the mission were achieved and radar center was destroyed.--] (]) 08:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: after the removal of SEMI PROTECT template from the article . we have some more vandalism attempts. i propose that the page should be put again in SEMI PROTECT template to prevent IP vandalism ]. regards --] (]) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article is about Dwarka == |
|
|
|
|
|
I would here like to state that the article is about Operation Dwarka and not Bombay so the results should contain what happened at Dwarka. The Pakistani Navy did not undertake any operation at Bombay except patrolling it's only submarine around Bombay which is not considered an operation. Moreover multiple records including the ones in sources Dwarka in fact led to Indian Navy moving some of it's ships to patrol waters around Dwarka to deter any further Pakistani operation in that area.--] (]) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
PAKISTAN DEFENCE JOURNAL is not reliable according to wikipedia anymore so stop inserting it. ] (]) 11:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your source does not say any thing about Operation Dwarka or it's result. It only states that whole Indian navy restricted it's activities to Indian shores and harbors not necessary Bombay due to neglet of Navy by Indian Government. Also do not remove reliable source form California Press. Your source is out of context and cannot be used in as a source in result section. Please to don't any further until issue is resolved on talk page.--] (]) 12:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You can see in the link that your source does not even contain the word Dwarka let alone give information about Operation Dwarka.--] (]) 06:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Objective == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] was unsuccessful because None of the stated objective were achieved . Though the article stated that "SOME" of the objectives were achieved . and they do not give any citation for the Achievement of Success. so i have removed that uncited line. Operation Dwarka is drummed up in Pakistan as Pakistan navy did not had "ANY" casualty and they succeeded in dropping bombs on Dwarka. which they say means the Success of Operation Dwarka. Whole issue is to garner public support towards defence forces.--] (]) 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: dear ] if you think that statement "Operation Dwarka was unsuccessful" is a POV then please explain the reason. just removing content from wiki articles serve no purpose--] (]) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It as inappropriate to start with the operation being unsuccessful (or successful), info box is there for that. Its a haphazard way of writing this way. |
|
|
2. You only gave Indian sources. Thats POV. --] (]) 07:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: please note that these are not my personal thoughts they were added by previous editors in consultation with the cited and ] source, and they seem to be correct as far as the citations are concerned. 2) giving neutral and reliable indian source is not POV. you are welcome to give reliable Pakistani sources as citations but please do not give pakdef.info it is already blacklisted. please go through http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info . As going by the current status pak def info is non reliable source. PLEASE REFRAIN from making edits by using non reliable source as it will only weaken your case and any other WIKIPEDIA EDITOR will revert your edits with all your hard work gone waste inspite of whatever you may say in its support . regards --] (]) 12:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] Pakdef has not been mentioned in these reverts or on this article. Donot give fake evidence and make personal attacks about it. Vandalism is taken as a personal attack if no evidence provided. --] (]) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we please concentrate on the ]? and the basis of your conclusion based on reliable sources. |
|
|
Also you have removed the references that were previously mentioned in the article and associated texts so an explanation is expected for such editings. regards--] (]) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pakistani naval failure (]) partial naval success (] ->) Pakistani naval success ?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
''Pakistani partial naval success'' ? i have gone through the citations for for operation Dwarka, nowhere it claims that ot was a naval success partial or complete. Also there is no evidene about the damage to radar at dwarka . Just because it was one of the Objectives of Pakistan Navy and they bombed Dwarka, is it sufficient to conclude that the RADAR was destroyed ? I doubt this. please give citations in case i have misssed any of it. --] (]) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Success of a mission depends on the objectives of the mission. The only objective that probably remained incomplete was that Indian navy stayed hidden in port instead of coming out to attack, hence the submarine ] could not attack them ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I also found a neutral third party book that it was a ''successful'' operation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Operation Dwarka Lambert M. Surhone (Herausgeber), Mariam T. Tennoe (Herausgeber), Susan F. Henssonow (Herausgeber), ISBN-10: 6135333615, ISBN-13: 978-6135333619 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Changing Pakistan claims == |
|
You're ''own'' citation quotes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Hagennos}} Please discuss your edits here. You have changed the wording in some of text which was clearly stated as Pakistani claims to stating them as facts. Now those sentences itself required citation to be there by changing the wording you are also changing the meaning of the sentence. Please explain yourself here and maintain ]. ] (]) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
"''Our Navy had no operational tasks but suffered a sea-borne attack at Dwarka In the west.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{ping|Adamgerber80}} How do you think the meaning was changed. See the edits here |
|
I'm adding these citations to the article and adjusting. If you have any problem with the citation, you can review them or ask me here. --] (]) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Original Text'''<br> |
|
:*First of all . you warn me of Edit warring and you yourself indulge in ]. How fair is that ? plz dont act like a wiki SUPER EDITOR . stop it, the Changes should be done only after consensus here. Another thing Kindly do not use misleading terms like "You're ''own'' citation'' " i have not added them but yes ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It was aimed at luring the heavy ships anchored in Bombay into attacking the Pakistani ships. The intention was that the ] PNS ''Ghazi'' lurking in the ] would then engage and sink the Indian ships. |
|
:*your edits [[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Operation_Dwarka&diff=next&oldid=455138523 and then you wentr on to completely remove these citations http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Operation_Dwarka&diff=next&oldid=455771939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Changed Text'''<br> |
|
:*Pakistani naval failure (]) partial naval success (] ->) Pakistani naval success.?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It was aimed at luring the heavy ships anchored in Bombay into attacking the Pakistani shipsto enable the ] PNS ''Ghazi'' lurking in the ] to engage and sink the Indian ships. |
|
:*the book Operation Dwarka that you have mentioned says ''The primary objective of the attack was to destroy the radar station and other naval installations which Pakistani Navy mistakenly believed were at Dwarka.'' please note this. it will be used below |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::When you already have the statement "''It was aimed at luring'' " then why should we have another sentence starting with "The intention was" |
|
::The mission objectives of Pakistan Navy are listed below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::1 *To draw the heavy enemy units out of Bombay for the submarine PNS Ghazi to attack. |
|
|
:::'' the ships in Bombay were under refit, while the active combatants were either on the East coast or further south off Kochi'' it failed to attract them for attack |
|
|
::2 * To destroy the radar installation at Dwarka. |
|
|
:::''No radar installation was not hit during the bombardment and no casualties were reported in the town''- from ]'' and the above book by Taschenbuch |
|
|
::3 * To lower Indian morale. |
|
|
:::''Did not happen'' |
|
|
::4 *To divert Indian Air Force effort away from the south. |
|
|
:::''IAF offensive went on '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Changed Text''' |
|
::What makes us to think that Operation Dwarka was a Pakistan Naval Success. it is misleading and a POV from Pak Navy. Take time and answer them one by one --] (]) 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::As per Pakistani sources, the objective to divert the Indian Air Force from attacking Pakistan's southern front worked as the Indian Air Force raids on the city of Karachi ceased, presumed to be due to lack of availability of the radar guidance, which was damaged in the attack. |
|
== Removing citations from article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Original Text'''<br> |
|
any reason for removing the citations ] that were associated with the article ? --] (]) 09:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::As per Pakistani sources, objective to divert the Indian Air Force attacking Pakistan's southern front worked as the Indian Air Force raids on the city of Karachi ceased, presumed by Pakistani sources to be due to lack of availability of the radar guidance to the IAF fighter jets, which was damaged according to Pakistani claims in the attack |
|
The text you've inserted has not only POV issues, but also its a bad way to start an article. |
|
|
You should review this citation. It was successful according to Pakistan navy. --] (]) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::When we already have the statement starting with "''As per Pakistani sources"'' then why we need to keep emphasizing it three times in a same sentence? --<span style="padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px;">]<sup>]</sup> </span> 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
:Read above section for relevant discussion. --] (]) 10:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: {{u|Hagennos}} Okay. I am going to self revert but split out that sentence since since it is too long and convoluted that in my view it conveys that as the neutral stance. ] (]) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) |
Referencing and citation: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)