# Talk:Operation Python

This seems very one sided article, bragging from Indian perspective. Can someone write a proper analysis?!
I completely agree with above. Sources mentioned are one-sided too. Mainly indian.
Neutrilty is very biased please backup the facts with high quality sources or consider rewriting the article with mentioning of sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.6.65 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 
Problem is, there are few or no non-Indian sources on operation trident and Operation Python. The Pakistanis liked to pretend it never happened, and did so quite successfully as they were under military dictatorship at the time. There were no other accounts of the operations, other than that Pakistan struck the destroyed ships from its naval register. 
Nomadfromhell (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. This is a Wiki. That means you can edit the article and provide some balence. Feel free to try anytime. DJ Clayworth 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The content of the article are cited, The event has not been publicised much in the pakistani literature as it portrayed the success of Indian Navy and the damage of Karachi harbour. Neverthless the Pakistani version of events can also be added if they are reliably sourced and cited. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Panama is a common location for Flags of Convenience and possibly also a minor maritime nation (due to limited population). Was the tanker really Panamanian or was that just its flag?--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

by the [| multiple edits] the userHassanhn5 (talk) has removed some content and the removal has not been explained on the talk page. some of these have been wrongly removed. from the article, . I expect cited explanations for the removal of content or else i propose the restoration of the article before these edits  --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

reverted the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455678644 
the bombing at okha occured on 5 December, 1971 (ref name=paf cite web  | title=pak gov website | url=http://www.paf.gov.pk/courage.html ) before the operation Python not after Python as it was wrongly portrayed in the article . 
added citations for these edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676085 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676512
--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made minor adjustments as per previous discussion results and reviewed a wrong cited phrase. Check out. I think the armed Pakistani ships like shahjahan, muhafiz and khaiber should be added to strength section. Add if you agree. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
you can add the strength section(but make sure its reliably cited.) Also there is a possibility that in future an editor might raise a question that these were the destroyed ships of PN, and a harbour generally has more ships, so the Strength of the Karachi harbour during Operation Python could be larger. unless its clearly cited that they were the only ships on harbour that time. what do you say? On the other hand, the participant vessels of the Indian navy in the event has been widely cited, hence it correctly placed for Indian side in infobox.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, there were no ships destroyed at harbour (if there were any at all at port) because there are no citations for that. In such case the arguing editor will have to bring citations. Adding the strength of the armed ships on both sides with their names is completely normal. Infact the rescue ships should be added too. Same goes for the operation trident (infact the fighter aircraft that did the friendly fire is also supposed to be in the strength since it was participating). Also, the destroyed ships would already go in the loses section so no editor will object. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I dont support adding the rescue ships to the strength they came later on to take survivors and were not a part of operation Python. though it can be mentioned in the aftermath section. about the Trident friendly fire, it happened on the next day, after Trident was already done and Indian ships returning back. The operation Trident was already concluded when the friendly fire was done.  its wrong and unwise to add the things that should only be a part of the aftermath section to the infobox. The infobox deals specifically to the event and its actual participants.
about the PNS ships in operation Python,i could only find mention of PNS Munsif, PNS Dacca as they were in Manora anchorage. The indian offensive was on ships at Manora anchorage as well as on Karachi harbour. with missiles destroying the Kemari oilfarm in Karachi. The PNS Ships at karachi harbour mistook the missile attacks at night to be an air raid and started shelling. there were many PNS gunboats at karachi harbour . its mentioned that PNS himalaya firing of starshells to look for a possible aircraft. there was constant firing  from PNS vessels at karachi harbour. just because no vessels at karachi harbour were destroyed does not necessarily mean they did not participate in the fight. PNS himalaya is one such example. at best  the strength og the PNS can be mentioned as PNS Dacca, PNS, Munsif, PNS himalaya and unknown number of ships at karachi harbour. this info can be placed,this looks quite reasonable , what do you say ? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, then ships that were there should be added in the strength section, but those that were in harbour should be marked in bracket to clarify. Yes, addition of rescue ships has some issue, but they played a significant roll. If there are any other articles adding SAR vessels, then they should be added other wise not. About operation trident, I think the Pakistani side still thought there were more coming, so it is considered to be a part of it. If not agreed, a separate discussion can be started on operation trident talk page if needed. Not related to this discussion, but reflists are normally not added to talk pages. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The question we need to ask is did they participate in Operation Python, if yes they can be added along with citations for the same, in the infobox. the word Unknown number of ships at karachi harbour also implicitly covers them.  if they participated only in rescue of survivors i guess its fine to mention their name in Aftermath section, neverthless the Unknown number of ships at karachi harbour covers all of them. (reflist was added as i was getting an error from my browser due to a ref tag in the citation of mmy comment. have fixed it .) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. All those ships that were out in the sea should be named and the unknown tag should be added on top. Please note that muhafiz in operation trident went to actually assist and rescue khaiber and got attacked. If any such cases were there in python, i.e. if any ships went into rescue missions during the operation, they should be added to strength. Review citation for that. Rest is fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
firstly i dont think we have a reliable citation stating muhafiz in operation trident went to actually assist and rescue khaiber and got attacked. secondly muhafiz was attacked during operation Trident hence its correctly there. I hope we are wise enough to distinguish between an event and its aftermath. dont confuse between them. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Read the story on Pakdef. It went to assist I think. Anyway, this one's for operation python and not trident. If any ships were engaging during this operation, they should be mentioned in strength. Esp. the ones that got sunk. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
yes If any ships were engaging during the operation, they can very well be added in infobox. just make sure that the engagements in the aftermath is different from engagements in the the operation . the events in the aftermath are best described in the article with the infobox solely reserved for the event that the infobox is about. and the content well cited of course.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That is understood. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Operation Python was essentially the destruction of much of one ports oil tanks. To say that the attack meant that "India had established complete control over the oil route from the Persian Gulf to Pakistani ports" seems somewhat far fetched.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Python/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since I did the Operation Trident review, I will take this one as well. Comments to come over the following days. Zawed (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for taking up the review. I have taken care of the issues raised in Trident's review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I did some minor copyediting to the prose, please review these to make sure I haven't altered any meanings. Some of the copy editing changes to the Operation Trident article should have been replicated here as it would have made my review more efficient. I strongly recommend you have a look at your other articles that are still awaiting a GAR to see if feedback on already reviewed articles could be applied. In the meantime, issues I noted with this article:

The lead mentions that following Operation Trident, the Pakistani Navy stepped up its aerial surveillance and that Pakistani warships attempted to outsmart the Indian Navy by mingling with merchant shipping. These facts are not discussed in the body of the article.
Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Compared to Trident, there is no information regarding the formation of the strike group for Python or indeed whether it was named. Is this information available?
There weren't much preparations, as mentioned small strike group was formed for the attack, no specific name was given. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading the article for Vinash, I see that its commander was decorated for the operation, you may as well mention it here.
Link Hiranandani and Simpson's rank
Cite 2 has an incorrect title, it should be 1971 War: The First Missile Attack on Karachi
Cites 4 and 8 are to the same source
Cite 9 isn't properly formatted, it should be similar to cite 1
Dupe link: Operation Trident
No DAB links
External links check out OK
That's all for now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zawed: All done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The dupe link was missed but I have fixed it. I believe this article now meets the all the GA criteria: it broadly covers the subject, is well written in a neutral tone and is appropriately cited. Passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830105254/http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php to http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for your recent edits on this article, and notifying me about the same. I did some work on the article, please take a look. Regarding the previous, I understand ScoopWhoop may not meet RS for historical information. But I would like understand your line of reasoning for Russia Beyond and SP's Naval Forces, especially the latter one. I ask so because these are generally considered reliable for general information, I mean they may not stand with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, considering this article to be having exceptional claims at several points. Also I may be missing some crucial points, which you might have identified regarding the reliability of these sources. KCVelaga (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SP's can be very inconsistent in the quality of their articles and I usually avoid it as much as possible, but in this case the removal may be unwarranted. When one account of the operation by Commander Neil Gadihoke published in Transition to Triumph is considered to be reliable, it'd be unreasonable to say that another account of his published by SP's is unreliable. —Gazoth (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliability is not a binary option and it often depends upon the exact stuff that you're citing via it. So, in light of that:-
Russia Beyond is considered as a Kremlin-dictated propaganda/PR tool 'to varying extents. That India and Russia share close ties; I doubt that an article authored by an Indian writer praising it's own military will not be quite favored upon. At any case, I am very skeptical about claiming the stuff about enemy-damage, from any one of any belligerency, that had a skin in it.
As to SP's naval forces; I can recall at-least 15-20 times (and I am hardly an avid reader), when they wrote grossly inaccurate stuff but failed to retract. They do publish good stuff but are highly inconsistent. Further, given the frequency of their publications, their citation count across reliable peer reviewed journals or books is quite underwhelming.
To me, a good article about MILHIST in these areas must not source anything concerning enemy-damage (immediate military damage; economic damage in long run; strategic damage; whatever) or misc. enemy affairs to sources, written by the army staff of the other side, in the voice of Wikipedia. I will go as far as to ask that such objective assessments may not be sourced from any Indian author; at all. ABC writes that Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel and Pakistan asked all it's fleet to teleport to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteran is okay; Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel. All it's fleet were subsequently teleported to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteran is not okay. If you do find Pakistani sources or some reputed foreign academic which/who concur about the dealt damage or their own decisions; it's fine to make the statement objectively.
Best, ∯WBGconverse 18:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for your response. Though most of your points make sense to me, I see this as a common practice in articles about battles, conflicts, and wars, in some GAs/FA as well. Keeping in view of WP:OSE, I shouldn't be saying that. But how do you deal with that when there is a lack of availability of sources. I'd love to have a discussion about this on a broader platform, at WT:MILHIST, and include this in the concerned NPOV and MOS policies, if not already present. It'll then sound like a true Wikipedia voice. KCVelaga (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@KCVelaga:--I think this to be a part of common sense and am skeptical about integration with our content policies; too specific. Let's ask some other experienced editor in these areas--@Kautilya3:--Do you agree with my above write-up and the broader theme? ∯WBGconverse 06:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Also @AshLin: KCVelaga (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, claims by involved parties need to be attributed. That is Wikipedia 101. If the people making the claims are internationally recognised scholars, we might have a debate about whether they are "involved" or not. But, otherwise, the basics trump the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me. A lot of this depends on context. I agree that common sense & logic should be the basis for judging whether a source is WP:RS. If there is a specific fact in dispute I'd be happy to comment. Best of all to avoid not so good sources unless it is a great imperative. AshLin (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)