Misplaced Pages

Talk:Operation Dwarka

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AshLin (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 7 November 2011 (→The radar was not destroyed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:36, 7 November 2011 by AshLin (talk | contribs) (→The radar was not destroyed: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconPakistan Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-21. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Indian / South Asia B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Indian military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force

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. BetacommandBot 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.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 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 --dBigXray (talk) 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.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

PAKISTAN DEFENCE JOURNAL is not reliable according to wikipedia anymore so stop inserting it. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 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.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see in the link here that your source does not even contain the word Dwarka let alone give information about Operation Dwarka.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Objective

The Operation Dwarka 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.--dBigXray (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

dear User:Hassanhn5 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--dBigXray (talk) 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 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 wp:RELIABLE 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 --dBigXray (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:harassment 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 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--dBigXray (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am on the lookout for additional sources. If and when I am able to get them, I would only then approach this issue. Without looking at the text, imo both sides views of the action need to be included with neutral language and citations. AshLin (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an old discussion continued in the below section where more than enough neutral and both Indian & Pakistani references are given to support the current revision of the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani naval failure () partial naval success ( ->) Pakistani naval success ??)_Pakis-2011-10-18T09:08:00.000Z">

Pakistani partial naval success ? i have gone through the citations for for operation Dwarka, nowhere it claims that it 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. --dBigXray (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC))_Pakis"> )_Pakis">

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 PNS Ghazi 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 (this book is based on wikipedia article )

You're own citation quotes:
"Our Navy had no operational tasks but suffered a sea-borne attack at Dwarka In the west."
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 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, they were a part of this article even before your edits but yes .
  • Pakistani naval failure () partial naval success ( ->) Pakistani naval success.??

  • 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
The mission objectives of Pakistan Navy (from Pak Navy Official history) 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 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Dwarka.html cite 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
if even the primary objectives of the operation was not achieved What makes us to think that Operation Dwarka was a Pakistan Naval Success. the Pakistan navy was only so called 'successful' in shelling without any achievement whatsoever. it is misleading and a POV from Pak Navy. I admit that Operation Dwarka though insignificant has been drummed up excessively by Pak Navy for domestic propaganda purposes , but that does not qualify for Wiki Neutral articles. Take time and answer them one by one --dBigXray (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The term is not misleading since you have previously supported for those references pointing your POV to them, while they clash with neutral ones. Also note that you specifically quoted that reference in your second point in this very post. So I can safely say that it is a reference supported by you.

My continuous edits were on my own last edits. That is not called edit warring. Edit warring is between 2 or more editors not a single editor. Also note that the edits I made are not baseless, I've added citations to justify whatever edits I've made to the article. We go by the verifiability here. If something can be verified through sources then it has to replace the old unsourced or less reputable stuff.

Misplaced Pages does not contain what is "true"... it contains material that can be verified. WP:TRUTH

Now coming to the topic at hand:

  • Making it clear about your quotation from the book I cited that Pakistan Navy attacked dwarka because it thought that certain installations were there (one of them was the radar station, which was really there). Quoting from whats already established and cited in article:
"The radar installation was hit during the bombardment and no casualties were reported in the town"
Also (this is an established and unchallenged text in the article),
"The objective to divert the Indian Air Force attacking Pakistan's Southern front worked as the Indian Airforce raids on the city of Karachi ceased, due to lack of availibilty of the radar guidance to the IAF fighter jets, which was damaged in the attack."

I think I've justified that radar came under attack and was hit. That's two objectives complete.

  • The book quotes:
"Operation Dwarka, also known as "Operation Somnath", was a successful naval operation commenced by the Pakistan Navy to attack on the Indian coastal town of Dwarka on 7 September 1965."

Now you can't derive your own conclusions when a reference says otherwise. Yes you can give arguments but on the bases of a verifiable reference. Your comments about mission failure are clearly contradicted by the reference you took from my citations. That settles about mission success and your comments about primary objectives not being complete is disregarded. As for POV from Pak Navy, this is a neutral authors POV. Now, for confirmation you can check the Pak Navy website I gave that Pak Navy is also considering it a success. Calling it propagenda is POV as you can see its from you're own opinion.

  • On the objective of lowering Indian morale (even though I do not have to justify this since in the previous paragraph I've already justified mission success, but take it as a good faith clarification), you quoted "Did not happen". This is a non verifiable statement so I think both of us cannot discuss this and leave it on the readers instead of article concluding it. Other than the obvious fact that No retaliation took place from the Indian Navy which is a sign.
  • The only thing left undone was that Indian ships (most were at a refit) didn't come out of port even on a raid. This also is a sign for the point above.

I'll also like to point out that the citation you gave also quotes text from the Pakistan Navy website. Another thing to note is the author of the article; "Ramesh Madan (Ex-Sgt, IAF)". That explains that this cite might be reliable (though I donot endorse that) but it is not neutral, rather it should be considered as an Indian source just like Pakistan Navy website (although reliable since its a gov.pk website) is considered to be a Pakistani source. I guess we can establish this atleast.

I've justified all your points. I'll advise you to read WP:BURDEN & WP:PRIDE. They will help you before you reply to this. It is annoying for any other editor to repeatedly defend an article even when they have given verifiable references that justify the texts added. When you come up to challenge the references or text you should understand that certain points have previously (or now) been established WP:HEAR.

In regard to your previous edits to all other articles and adding that text about pakdef even when it was not valid in case of this article, you should know that adding text all over wikipedia just to make your point isn't a good sign, WP:POINT. I can understand what you have to say and reply in the same fashion. And it is not required to post it on every article you see me editing. That's the least thing that should be understood. -lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC))_Pakis"> )_Pakis">

  • In spite of all your Lengthy Comment you have failed to give a CITATION That Pak Navy destroyed the radar. Even the book whose citation you claim is Neutral 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. . i do hope you understand well what the phrase mistakenly believed means . You need to defend this fact first you want to claim anything. As far as all the citations that i have seen all of them say that no radar was hit (in coherence with what the book that you quoted.)
  • indian Navy vessels hiding in the port is again your own POV. mentioning it here serves no purpose. I am quoting here again the ships in Bombay were under refit, while the active combatants (which means other battle ships) were either on the East coast or further south off Kochi it failed to attract them for attack. so the purpose of submarine GHAZI to lure and destroy any Indian Navy vessel in the process was a failure. if you can establish the objectives as achieved only then you can claim success (or in other case failure) of Pakistan Navy in Operation Dwarka. --dBigXray (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My argument is based upon established text already this very article. Not to mention, I've given enough sources to point out clearly in words that the operation was successful. I do understand what mistakenly believed means, but the fact remains, out of those installations the radar really was there. Also the article says the bombardment of Karachi seized after this mission because the radar was hit. Other than that note that the site you refered quoted Radio Pakistan transmission that dwarka was badly destroyed (even though India claimed against it - but that makes it a disputed fact). If we start re-commenting on the already established facts we will have to point out every thing in every comment. Don't you think that is redundant?
It is interesting to note that the whole of Indian Navy was under a refit during the war. That being said (whatever the case was), there was no response by India in retaliation and no loss was suffered by Pakistan, hence a win win situation for that objective. Repeatedly mentioning that Pakistan Navy failed in operation dwarka will not change the facts when I've given you neutral & Pakistani CITATION that the operation was successful. Read WP:HEAR & WP:Competence, please donot make me repeat the things that I have well cited. If you don't like it that's POV and is unacceptable and I will disregard such arguments. As of now, the WP:BURDEN is on you. I have already, in so many words, proved the success of operation. If you fail to WP:HEAR the point, this debate is useless. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
you can write long paragraph and you can not give one reliable citation that says the Radar was destroyed at operation Dwarka. You are unable to find it hence you are writing long paragraphs based on morality etc.
  • unless this fact about radar is established. your edits are disruptive and liable for a revert.
whole of Indian Navy was under a refit is your own statement. Please read again the cited source says, the ships in Bombay were under refit, while the active combatants (which means other battle ships) were either on the East coast or further south off Kochi. i dont need to explain the statement. its clear. You have changed this article without proper citations and any change without proper citations can be reverted back . i hope you know this. regards --dBigXray (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact about the radar is already established (read the article, its there unchallaged). Even the site you quoted bharat-rakshak.com is quoting Radio Pakistan as destroying dwarka very badly.
The statement about the refit was a sarcastic point and was not the bases of my argument, I hope you understand that. The next sentence gives a reasonable argument.
Note that I've already established the success of the mission by reliable AND neutral sources and you have failed to give any reasonable argument other than putting the burden of proof on me, read WP:BURDEN. I will not repeat what I have already explained right above. Removing sourced content and edit warring over it is included in vandalism and is subject to blocks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You have misunderstood the citation . BR quotes that Paksitani radio announced that Radar was damage because The pakistan navy was in the misunderstanding that they had hit the radar and they Thought SOIn the mean time we heard radio Pakistan giving the news that Pakistan Naval ship BABUR shelled Dwarka, that Dwarka was very badly destroyed . that is what meant in the citation. i encourage you to read it again to get a clear picture. you still need to support your edits here with proper citations --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I've read the citation right. You just said it yourself. "BR quotes that Paksitani radio announced that Radar was damaged...". After that is the point of view of BR or Indian officials. All I included in the article was Pakistan Radio transmitted it. Which still stands true even at your own objection. Pakistan Navy website would give a better picture of their understanding rather than BR. The citation is proper. I only added as far as the citation said. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Please read it again Even the Pak Radio did not even said that Radar was destroyed. I have updated my above comment. the citation says In the mean time we heard radio Pakistan giving the news that Pakistan Naval ship BABUR shelled Dwarka, that Dwarka was very badly destroyed note that this is what PAkistan RAdio thought and not the correct reality. the correct reality as stated furthur was We did not find any damage or casualties in the entire village, Though the people in the village were now scared and there was a bit of panic around.
  • and most of the shells fell between the temple and the railway station, which is around three kilometres away from the lighthouse. There was no damage to any building, though there was some damage to the Railway Guest House situated near the railway station. The twentieth-century avatars of Mahmud of Ghazni had failed in their mission. Nearly all the shells fell where the soil was soft and they remained unexploded. These shells were later collected by the Home Guards, the local police and Air Force men and brought to the Air Force base. Out of them about 35 to 40 were unexploded live shells. hope i have stated the matter more clearly by quoting the source. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
My reply was only to explain the sentence I added at the end of the article in my last edit: "Radio Pakistan, however, transmitted that dwarka was badly destroyed." This part (as you just quoted yourself) is in the citation and is valid. The radar part is already discussed in previous discussion. The mission success is undisputed by any source (except that of Indian Navy). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • May i know which (among the many) undisputed source says that the radar was destroyed, and the mission was successful in achieving its objectives ? this question remains unanswered inspite of all these lengthy arguments from your side. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Read my comments again. Operation success has been cited. This discussion is over from my side. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
check the book citation http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VY1nTMBQ9vQC&lpg=PA1795&dq=%22PNS%20Shahjahan%22&pg=PA1795#v=onepage&q&f=false here --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been some recent developments and it seems that the Surhone's book is based on wikipedia article , cannot be used as a source for WIKI.

Operation Dwarka was a limited engagement of no significanceNo Strategic value. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC))_Pakis"> )_Pakis">

That was not the only reference I was basing on. There are so many more references in the article telling that this operation was significant and successful. . Here are some more . Not to mention it led questions being asked in the parliament . And the increase in the Indian naval expenditure due to that operation as cited in the article. Stop wasting time here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
dittmer does not state that the "dwarka operation was of no significance value"...he asserts that the operation had "no strategic value", which is of course correct as the dwarka operation only had tactical objectives.-- mustihussain  23:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
True, here's another one to satisfy Dbigxray. .
  • this is a talk page so it would be nice if we discuss only about the content. stop writing useless lines,allegations,Preachingsthey are of no use here, you are only flooding talk pages by doing that and besides you are also wasting everyones time, comment to the point or else dont
  • Hasan i hope we know what belongs to wp:RS and what not. giving citations of blogs/opinions serve no purpose. if you have a valid neutral reference please give the links here along with the quote and the source. we should get this straight. i have a number of Citations stating that radar was intact and the operation was not a success as it failed its objectives. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Read again. They are not blogs, maybe you forgot the books included. Content is the only thing being discussed here. Discussion about your wrong claims about the content is not forum talk. And you struck through your own claim too I guess, so decided before you claim things. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing citations from article

any reason for removing the citations ] that were associated with the article ? --dBigXray (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read above section for relevant discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Assessment

Undid revision 458885347 by Mustihussain http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Operation_Dwarka&action=historysubmit&diff=458885347&oldid=458885174 . along with a warning. An Neutral Assessment of controversial issues by reliable sources is very much relevant , for wiki Neutrality. The PAkistani sources claim operation Dwarka as a success , Indian Sources Claim it was a failure and fruitless. Its incorrect for a wiki article to project only the Pakistani wp:POV in a historical article. lets not make it biased. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

this is not a pov-issue. your edits were completely undue. instead of creating a whole section filled with your cherry-picked quotes, i suggest you include your points in the main text. if you're able.-- mustihussain  16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
well you still need to explain what makes you think that the comment by neutral authors taken from wp:RS books on the event makes it undue, just because it refutes the pakistani claim about Dwarka does not make it undue or a POV. its still a neutral assessment and needs, mention on the article for an unbiased wiki article --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
read my comment again. slooooooowly. take your time.-- mustihussain  16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been more than enough discussion on the topic in a section above. Commenting here will not improve the article any further. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If i am not mistaken mustihussain is not opposed to the content i added but opposed to creating a new section for that. removing the content (with just an edit summary redundant) and without any response to my comment here (till that time) was not appreciated, hence the warning. well the neutral quotes can also be placed in the aftermath section, already there. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You've already been answered for neutrality in a section above. Creating a separate section will only violate WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
when i reverted you first time you're obliged to discuss the matter on the talk page. when you've initiated a discussion you need to wait for the response, even if it takes a couple of days. however, you added your content right back in almost immediately, thus, violating wp:brd. you're the one who deserves a warning, get it? as for your edits, the aftermath section is a appropriate place for additional information. it already mentions that some consider the operation as "symbolic" or a "nuisance raid"...making your dittmer-quote redundant. suggest that you rather add the ditmer-reference to "symbolic" or "nuisance raid". your second source, "operation dwarka" is not reliable. suggest you read the product description here . the so-called "rs book" is based on wiki-articles! as i told you a million times before, do not cherry-pick quotes! read the sources, from page to page if you want to be taken seriously. -- mustihussain  17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
ah, i see that you gave a link to the ditmer-source, but not to the dwarka-source ...were you trying to hide the fact that the dwarka-book is based on wiki-articles? completely disingenuous and lame disruptive editing.-- mustihussain  18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
the Surhone link was not there because google books did not allowed checking inside the Surhone book for the other book i got the link to the exact page and the paragraph, hence it was provided. dont make your own assumptions. The google book description never said its based on wiki articles. neverthless, since we have an amazon description saying so. we can now stop arguing over the Surhone book. and yeah stop personal attacks will u --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
When you issue warnings, you should consider the replies not as personal attacks. I'll just add here this is only going into circles. You have been showed enough neutral sources. The operation was a success as cited. Raising it on different pages or sections will raise grounds for you being reported. Then you will repeatedly link everywhere that you got reported not mentioning what you did to get to that situation. We already have a consensus by citations here. You can't just come back after days to challenge the same issue with the same arguments, that's highly disruptive. I'll rather advise mustihussian to just revert, warn, report (if you add for a fourth time) you instead of explaining everything since that has already been done. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
google books does not mention that the dwarka-source is based on wiki-articles? really? take a look here, , roflmao! based on this very embarrassing incident and your past disingenuous behaviour it is clear that you cannot be trusted. i suggest you shape up and start rebuilding your reputation, otherwise i will report you as a te.-- mustihussain  18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
well this clears it all. the book needs to be removed from the citations of this article.as of now its still there on the article as a citation no 1 wrongly used by the editors here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Operation_Dwarka&action=historysubmit&diff=456157430&oldid=456155455 . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
well observed. done.-- mustihussain  19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
the quote and citation by dittmer is a wp:RS wrongly removed here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Operation_Dwarka&action=historysubmit&diff=458885347&oldid=458885174 . i guess we need to put that back.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
see my comment above. make your point in the aftermath-section or in another section. no quotations. the article is just to short.-- mustihussain  20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
and what makes us to decide that authors line from his book about the incident cannot be quoted ?? please dont tell me that just bcuz you say so --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
what will happen if everyone began to insert quotes of their liking? the blockquotes will render the article an unreadable mud war. capice? do as you like but don't get mad if you're reverted due to lack of consensus.-- mustihussain  20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

the quotes are not based on ones liking these are neutral assessment of the incident from a neutral book a good wp:RS, there is no denying of this fact. Besides such neutral assessment are often placed on a number of wiki articles on topics which are disputed among the stakeholders. an editor reverting it has to have a reasoning here , he cannot just revert it because the neutral content does not match with official PNS version of the story. if one still persists then the matter can be taken up furthur.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

what on earth are you babbling about? "match with official pns version"? i don't care about the pns version or another version. i want a neutral version. i don't mind including the dittmer source and the content therein (as you noted yourself). i objected to the use of blockquotes as these ensure a single quote taking huuuuge amount of empty space. looks stupid and redundant. do you comprehend the difference, or should i slow down? -- mustihussain  21:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
well of course you need to put down that aggressive tone and start commenting with a cool head, words such as babbling offends others, i am replying in a gentle tone and expect the same in return. the issues of space with blockquote was decided not by me but by others. i dont have a control on that, blockquotes were made for this particular use and its used all over wikipedia, even if it hurts your eyes. you can reply to the wiki technical isssues if you feel that use of blockquotes as these ensure a single quote taking huuuuge amount of empty space. looks stupid and redundant. . I am not going to argue on that technical aspect. It seems that the article now needs a major clean up as in the discussions above was based heavily on the book by Surhone that was found by Hasan first. and I did not object it because i thought that it was a valid neutral source and i could not look inside, but it seems both me and Hasan were wrong in that decision of ours of taking Surhone's book as reliable. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
you were making ludicrous allegations, hence babbling. now, shall we proceed? what you need to do is to add a line about the operation being of "no strategic value" (which is correct as the operation only had tactical objectives), using the dittmer source. using blockquotes for such an obvious statement is misplaced and redundant.-- mustihussain  21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be trivial to add too... the nature of operation is very clear from the objectives. It will only seem like an attempt to unduely degrade the operation which Dbigxray is hoping for. Check his bargaining behavior on different levels starting from mentioning an unrelated reference (that was not used in the article) in a separate section on the talk page to making it a POV issue. There is no consensus and he's out weighed by citations. Misplaced Pages:Don't assume. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah yeah we know, you are saying if a Neutral quote is not in line with the PAkistani POV then its Trivial . Sadly things dont work that way, i hope the other editors are reading, --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 04:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I've provided Indian citations as well! It's not the Indian claims that you want to instate, its your own POV that you are repeatedly pushing here. I'd prefer if you don't reply to my comments not addressed to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The radar was not destroyed

The official history of the Indian Navy clearly specifies the damage done by Pak shelling, no damage to radar is mentioned. The relevant reference is :

This is corroborated by the primary source :

No sources are provided for the alternate version.

AshLin (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: