# Talk:Operation Trident (1971)

Hi all.
It's important that we don't sound like Wikipedia is taking sides here. Beware of congratulatory language or editorialising. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Clayworth: I edited the article recently to give it a more NPOV.  Let me know if it needs further editing -TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

The reference and comparison to six day war is WP:OR by Ironboy11 as the cited texts shows no mention of the included texts . hence the wp:OR texts has been removed--dBigXray (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

i have added "the first use of ship launched missile in the war" from ref name="GlobalSecurity". also i have reverted the paragraph to the original form by Editor  Mandarax  as this version of paragraph was to the point . the earlier version ( by Mandarax)and the current version now reads the task group converged about 70 nautical miles (130 km) south of Karachi detected Pakistani targets, analyzed as warships 45 miles to the northwest and 42 miles to the northeast. --dBigXray (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The success of this operation prompted another successful attack on  Karachi on 8 December 1971, known as Operation Python. was the stable version before edits by  (now blocked)User:Ironboy11 as the attack was not just limited to pakistan naval forces. 
The version after the edits by  (now blocked)User:Ironboy11 was "attack on Pakistani Naval forces in Karachi" is incorrect i have reverted it back to the correct version.--dBigXray (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info/contactus.html seems to me a Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Editors are requested to verify this fact and remove the citations (if needed). --dBigXray (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The funny thing is, you're ok with using this source where it supports your POV all over the article! --lTopGunl (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

let me make it clear for once and for all I neither promote pakdef nor have i used it in my editings. it is you lTopGunl (talk)  who have deliberately used this :*lTopGunl (talk) please go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. and also Just because a statement does not please you id no justification for calling it  a POV you are supposed to give proper proof with NEUTRAL citation before calling it as POV. Please understand that by using Non RELIABLE sources you are EXTENSIVELY damaging the neutrality and credibility of WIKIPEDIA regards --dBigXray (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
RSN concludes source as not a non-RS. [1] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Casualty of Indian Navy in Operation Trident was NIL. 
the Bombing at okha was not a part of Operation Trident and hence it is neither correct nor required to add it here. of course this was a remarkable event in the war, which had numerous effect and damage to both the countries , but please lets concentrate to the casualty of OPERATION TRIDENT only and this OKHA bombing was not a part of operation trident.  hasan please dont revert it again. 
also i have repaired the broken citation named name="GlobalSecurity" as it is used multiple times in the article --dBigXray (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This incident took place in immediate retaliation to the operation. It was a consequence. And other operations were ceased after these twin operations (trident & python) due to this attack. Its significant enough. 
Also, stop trying to give an aggressive tone to the article. If you want to remove any redundant text, keep the neutral tone. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Buddy you can discuss any statement that you feel is AGGRESSIVE . we can discuss that and if possible we can propose a  change but only after proper discussion. Please do not be in such a hurry to push your EDITINGs on WIKIPEDIA, they will simple be reverted either by me or by other editors if you dont have sufficient explanation and citations for your changes--dBigXray (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Bombing of Okha is significant, but was NOT a part of Operation Trident. It belongs in the section on the aftermath of the operation. The Result section in the infobox for the result of the hostilities DURING the operation. This must be limited in scope to actions that took place DURING Operation Trident on the night of 4-5 December off Karachi.Skcpublic (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

When you say results, immediate retaliations count, so I guess it does come in the infobox. You modified already reviewed content and restored uncited content claiming instead to be verified when it was not even cited to a source. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Retaliations are not part of the operation. Feel free to write a new page on the Retaliation Operation. On the attack on PNS Shah Jahan, the content is present in a number of articled already cited in the article. They were not listed on the paragraph. I added 3 citations to that paragraph in my edit timed "01:55, 26 October 2011". This includes neutral sources. Your edit of "05:28, 26 October 2011" removed my citations. Skcpublic (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Skcpublic is correct here. i request user lTopGunl (talk) to see any Western battle page. you will note that only the immediate losses are reported. Every battle has multiple retaliations and that way every battle follows, but everything cannot and should not be placed in infobox.  if the retaliations had occured during Operation Trident then it would have been worthy of placing in infobox. since it was not the case so it does not deserve the infobox. the aftermath section in the article is fine for it. It should be removed.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you're giving the example, can you give an a reference of any western article in this format? The okha harbour retaliation didn't destroy just one fuel tank as the current version shows. I'm reverting back recent edits by Skcpublic as he violated WP:BRD, I'm open for debate for those edits as well as the infobox. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that PAF was part of Operation Trident? If so, you need to cite a source that says that PAF participated in the planning for Operation Trident. If you want to include info on a follow-up operation that was in retaliation to the operation being discussed in the article here, then you need to illustrate that this is the standard practice first. Skcpublic (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm arguing that PAF retaliation was immediate to these twin operations (trident & python) and should be considered. However, if other articles on military operations are not including loses from immediate retaliations in loss section of infobox, show an example and I'll remove it. There's nothing to get heated about. This one is rather about how an article is formatted rather than POV.
You need to either provide a reference which shows that the PAF action on Okha was part of and during Operation Trident, or  other examples that include retaliations in the casualty figures in infobox. If you can't support your edit in either of these two ways, please revert your changes responsibly. --Skcpublic (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The information you added about other ships is disputed [2]. A neutral POV has to be given in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ruling out pakdef.info and bharat-rakshak.com, both of which have potential bias, there are 2 neutral references cited on the other ships that were hit - http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1971.htm. Both of these are independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcpublic (talk • contribs) 
The citations you have given don't say that the ship in question was irreparably damaged, you added that at his own accord. This POV is also disputed by the Pakistani sources which call it exaggeration. Those sources are reliable sources even though possibly not neutral with respect to this issue, but neutrality is achieved by considering sources from both belligerents as well as third parties. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the citations provided? http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html states PNS Shahjahan as damaged. Here are other sources: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-4/harry.html and http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf that also report the ship as damaged irreparably. http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/962.htm states that it was scrapped in 1971. http://www.worldnavalships.com/directory/shipinfo.php?ShipID=2295 goes further to state that it was sunk on 4 Dec 1971. --Skcpublic (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I've read them. Now see how your own citations are deviating from each other making the issue more suspicious. This is a valid neutrality dispute. I've already seen bharat rakshak's article which is accredit to Indian officers' reports while Pakdef's is not. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
My citations are not deviating on the core point that PNS Shahjahan was hit. They differ in whether the ship was damaged or sunk. None of these sources dispute the fact that the ship was no longer in service after 1971. If you claim otherwise, then provide a reference that shows that the ship was operational in or after 1972. The pakdef article you quote has no author or accreditation which makes it highly suspect. Can you cite a single independent references that claims the ship was not hit. I have provided independent references other than bharat-rakshak that support the claim that the ship was hit. --Skcpublic (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The word irreparable is not backed up by the Australian source, bharat rakshak is merely accounting information (and accrediting) to the Indian officers. I've provided the reference of pakdef which clearly states your dispute as an exaggeration. Note that pakdef is an independent source (read the website's disclaimer or run a whois on it - its outside Pakistan's jurisdiction). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So if we drop the world "irreparably", then based on the indepedent Australian source, it should be ok to say that the ship was damaged and based on the independent navsource.org that it was scrapped in 1971. Just by being based outside Pak jurisdiction doesn't make pakdef "independent" - either the authors invented this fact, or they were provided input from the pak military - which are you claiming? --Skcpublic (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If we drop the word irreparably (based on all the sources), then I guess at this point its ok to add the word 'damaged' leaving the burden of proof (incase I want to claim against that too) to me. Jurisdiction means, they have no 'influence' on the source. And no, sources don't 'invent' facts (they are the instrument of verification) nor did pakdef said that their only source was pak army. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The pakdef article you cite (a) credits no author, (b) names no sources or references and (c) refers to pakistani naval assets in the first person. This indicates it was written by a pak naval source. It is hence not independent and not reliable. As the consensus on pakdef called for caution, this specific article from pakdef should not be used as a reference. --Skcpublic (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
When sources don't credit an author its either an editorial or an article by one of the publisher's sources. Sources often put up their own analysis. Reliability of the sources has no question, we're already over that. Yes, the first person case raises a point, but not about reliability but about neutrality. So it still has a weight in the decision of neutrality. I guess we should agree upon the word damaged as cited by the austrailian source since the Pakistani source (in case it is written by a naval source as remarked) is claiming it to be not touched at all while Indian source is claiming to have completely destroyed it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done I've added the ship in causalities section instead of results as trivial. Also, on second thoughts, the dates are already mentioned on the top of the article, it will be redundant to add them to the retaliation part again. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 DoneThe dispute has been taken to and [| discussed at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard ] with a resolution that it is correct to remove the mention of okha from the Infobox. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

{{edit request}}
Details for request:the section Controversies has wrongly been placed and it  needs removal as there is no credible  source supporting the so called Controversy of Operation Trident. The Operation was planned by the Indian forces and carried accordingly by navy and air force . There has been no controversy whatsoever on this operation trident, and no one has wrongly claimed anything as mentioned in the section, The user lTopGunl (talk) is acting on personal beliefs and is writing his own wp:OR by mentioning words like controversy and wrongly claimed, rather than giving proper citations for the section he is giving useless arguments. I request editors to remove this section as not only this is rfedundant and needless but also it is misleading from what Reliable sources Claim. The attack was carried by Indian Forces On Karachi Harbour. the rest is explained in details below.

Also [| here by using these phrases ] the user lTopGunl (talk)  is deliberately trying to include self congratulatory phrases in the article , while completely ignoring that the rule that self congratulatory words are avoided in Wiki articles for neutrality --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
[3] Indian airforce is claiming to have made those kills and destroying the fuel tanks at Karachi. Self dispute? Which one's true? If it is disputed, there should be a section for this claim by IAF --lTopGunl (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

no this is not a dispute. The fact is Karachi harbour was attacked both by NAvy and Airforce from India. The Tanks were destroyed by the indian forces (not by Pak forces of course). the Citations claim that Indian Naval missiles were fired and the IAF planes also coordinated their attack so that the Operation Trident can be successful. This happens in every war/battle. THe fact is Fuel Tanks of Karachi harbour was destroyed in operation trident by Indian Forces THis is an undisputed fact and so it has rightly been places in the Infobox of Operation Trident. If user lTopGunl (talk) wants to research more that who (navy or Airforce) was responsible for it he is welcome to do so. I dont think a section for the claim is necessary, since the war was between India and Pakistan not a war between PAkistan vs (indian navy and Indian Air force). --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a dispute among the Indian sources. When this happens, a controversy section is created for the possibilities. I've provided a citation. Read the article I cited, the IAF officer claims that Navy didn't make those kills but the airforce did. The oil tanks were destroyed but that's not the issue, you're framing it wrong. Its not about a 'fight' between India's own forces which was obviously not the case. Its about who claims the kills. Quoted from the given source:
"The truth was out and last year on Navy Day the Navy admitted that one missile was fired towards Karachi but did not claim it hit the Oil Tanks at Kemari which were earlier set on fire by Don Conquest, Gupta and Mehdekar"
--lTopGunl (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
i am not sure if the citation that has been stated above can be used for creating a controversy as it is a personal opinion and does not give any reference to the source of the information--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not a personal opinion. It is a cited claim. Otherwise you will always claim any published book/news/article to be personal opinion, but the fact that it is published makes it verifiable. Also I don't see it even being refuted by a Navy source (even if it was refuted), it is a valid controversy. I think it should be added under a section. Try to look at the facts critically and see if you are opposing it just because I am saying it or because you have a point. If you don't have a point, then move on to another area where you can contribute instead of hanging on to things. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well no thanks for the advice to move on to another area, I have already repeated this numerous times on talk pages and yet again i will repeat it  Lets not discuss irrelevant things on talk pages of article and concentrate on the subject matter of the article. Hope i will not be asked to repeat this statement again --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well then, clear as it is, I have a citation, and you don't. I've cleared my self of WP:Burden where as you are only basing you arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
the citation IDU quotes Pak was in the midst of a war; oil tanks across the harbour were burning fiercely, but the band played on i doubt this could happen. the claims in the article are also dubious. these are Claims by a Pakistani naval officer Rear Admiral K.M. Alam, captain of the Pakistan Naval Academy, has this to say in a book by Rear Admiral Zahir Shah how could he decide whose missile was that? This is silly controversy created by some pakistan officers as none of the Reliable citations cite this .  i suggest removal of the section or giving valid reliable citations.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Also this inclusion of controversy  is a wp:OR as non of the verifiable citations claim of any controversy, whatsoever about the kills. the section is a clear instance of  original reserach by user lTopGunl (talk). --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 Not done Yes, bands do play during parades. And yes, parades still take during war. This text is from a published article, your doubts are only WP:OR and not enough to contradict the source. It is not just claimed by the Pakistani naval officer. It is a claim of a Pakistani naval officer quoted by an Indian airforce officer confirming it with his claims that the airforce pilots made those attacks. The article is written by an Indian officer if you haven't checked yet. These claims are from both sides. You are only replying with WP:OR & WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The word controversy represents this clash of claims. Since the other citations have not mentioned or refuted it yet this Indian source claims it, it is a controversy. Come back when you have some basis to argue upon. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
first there are no reliable sources to claim the above moreover the words you have used in the article do not match with your citation accused of wrongly claiming  and wrongly claimed moreover this lines were spoken by the Pak Officer and this fact has been carefully suppressed to misguide other editors. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
IAF officers are a reliable source when they comment on Indian armed forces. And moreover the article is published on an Indian news source. The word 'wrongly' is used to avoid indignant tone used in the article by the author and also, due to copyright issues, the text is not copied, instead it is re-wrtten. No, these words are not only spoken by the Pakistani officer, the pilots are being referred to as well, along with their names. You are arguing without any basis, that's included in disruptive editing. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
IAF officers are a reliable source when they are commenting themselves. Not if their quotes are twisted and presented for satisfying other motives. no reliable source gives the above quote. besides use of accused of wrongly claiming  and wrongly claimed  are your own wp:OR--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, you are completely wrong since the text is in coherence with the source other than the fact you are baselessly arguing. Consider it as a warning since I'm staying away from your talkpage. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
One cannot add content to History Articles based on personal thinking beware of wp:OR, This was never a controversy , IAF planes did attack the the Karachi port along with the Missiles from Indian Navy. there was no controversy anywhere and it has no reliable sources claiming of such controversy and words like WRONGLY CLAIMED are completely misleading. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've given an article which is not of personal claims but accredited. There's no original research here. You are free to review the article in question as many times as you like. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You cannot escape from Burden_of_proof  there is no justification for using the words like controversy , wrongly claimed  etc. When you add content it has to be in coherence with the verifiable Sources, Operation TRIDENT was Successful Operation Carried by Indian Forces and there is no Controversy about it, even if you  dont like it --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The source clearly says that Kohli did not Claim that but inspite of this you have used wp:OR and went on with words like controversy and wrongly claimed ..--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I've given a citation and you are just arguing baselessly. You should really review WP:BURDEN. Btw, if you don't use caps in your posts I will still be able to read those words. Review the source, I've not written anything against it and stop wasting time here. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If you dont have time then you should not worry about it. this section needs removal as there is no source supporting the so called Controversy of Operation Trident. The above user is acting on personal beliefs and is writing his own wp:OR. I request editors to remove this section as not only this is rfedundant and needless but also it is misleading from what Reliable sources Claim. The attack was carried by Indian Forces On Karachi Harbour. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Any editor is free to verify the source which properly gives credits where it quotes and is a claim by an Indian officer rather than a POV claim from Pakistan. Dbigxray has not given even a single reference to oppose. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have already verified all the citation for this incident and the so called claims  by the above user are not Mentioned in any wiki Reliable source. There has already been considerable attempts to damage this article by removing content without reasons. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
the claims that these words are said by such and such person is a dubious claim. the claims are not attributed to any sources. Wiki does not credit dubious claims without reliable sources. If these quotes are really said then on or the other Relaible source regarding the event would mention it. moreover the topic of the article that is used is altogether a different one, and the language used in the article is also questionable and raises multiple questions on the above website mention by the user. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{edit request}} cancelled for now; please re-request if/when there is consensus, thanks.  Chzz  ►  00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Your edit request has been denied and you are just using the tag as a tag of shame now. I've waited for enough time to justify your WP:VOLUNTEER and yet you have made no progress to justify your stand. The tag has no purpose now unless a real dispute is there. At the moment the only reason you gave is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Naval blockade on West Pakistan  was a part of The Infobox until it was wrongly removed by User lTopGunl (talk) who din not even gave a valid citations for supporting this removal of content. the citation states During the 1971 India-Pakistan war, India's blockade of Karachi had a serious impact on the Pakistani economy. Again in 1999, during the Kargil conflict, India threatened to blockade Karachi port.  citation = http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC04Df06.html 
This part is wrongly removed and should be restored in the article. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On destruction of Okha facilities, more incursions could not be made as cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope you know what a blockade means. You dont need multiple incursions for a blockade. The karachi harbour was damaged by the operation of Indian Navy and No ships were allowed to reach karachi harbour due to the blockade of karachi harbour by indian navy, this was one of the important resons why Pakistan had to surrender in 1971 as Pak forces had exhausted most of their fuel and ammunitions and the Naval blockade denied them from any replenishments in terms of fuel and ammunitions--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Pakistani sources as well as the Indian source I gave don't mention the blockade. The article you cited is written by an Indian, has quite some tone, smell nationalism? Raises a point on its neutrality. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
asiatimes is a Reliable news source widely quoted on Wikipedia. your arguement of Nationality of reporter will not hold any value as an arguement to this dispute. besides there are a number of other citations as well
 During the 1971 Indo-Pak War, India effectively blockaded Karachi, Pakistan's only major harbour.  http://www.issi.org.pk/old-site/ss_Detail.php?dataId=372 
 Following Operation Trident, the Indian Navy continued to play an important role in the 1971 war, notably by blockading the port of Karachi. http://www.indiandefence.com/indian-navy/
The Indian Navy accomplished the task assigned to it within the first few days of the war. No enemy shipping could move in or out of its harbours. Merchant ships did not dare approach Karachi. Control of the seas around both wings of Pakistan was with the Indian Navy. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Banerjee.html 
I think this information is sufficient enough for this arguement. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't use the word reliable. I said 'neutral'. The source does not appear to be neutral. And for the current references, agreed. I'll make amends. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing and changing it  But its still incomplete.  the citations clearly shows Its was a Effective Blockade, the current article status shows as Partial Blockade adding the word Partial without any source amounts to wp:OR. Technically a partial blockade means that some ships were allowed while some were blocked. In reality (as cited above) no ship was allowed to reach Karachi and it is an Effective and complete Blockade and not a partial one as it has been shown in the recent edit. In my opinion its better to go with what the reliable citations are saying rather than introducing  original Research  in the Important military history Articles. regards --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you didn't read the complete citation. This citation and other citations as well say that Pakistan had a submarine fleet which could easily patrol the sea. That amounts to a partial one unlike in east Pakistan where no ship could leave the port. The current statement is perfectly correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[| with This edit  ]  and [this infobox edit ] User lTopGunl  has wrongly removed an important event in the course of operation trident this section needs to be restored immediately. If the users disagree they can comment here.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue is already under discussion in the infobox section.. you should read the discussion, I would advise you to move this section and place it as a subsection to include that discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a number of Discussion includedabove. and this part is an important section. Besides in your recent edits you again seem to have ignored this fact. Hence  a new section is very relevant. I am quoting a section below here for the benefit of editors reviewing this edit
Nipat then engaged the second contact and a third contact and fired a missile on each of these contacts at about 2300 hrs(IST), which were the Merchant vessel Venus challenger and the destroyer PNS Shahjahan respectively. The Venus challenger was completely darkened and proceeding at 16 knots. The Styx AShM struck the ship and a huge flash was seen and evaluated to be ammunition exploding. The ship broke into two and sank in less than 8 minutes, about 26 miles south of Karachi. After the war, it was reliably learnt from merchant shipping circles and Bangladeshis who deserted the Pakistan navy as well as Military attaches of foreign embassies in Pakistan that this ship was carrying a near full load of US ammunition from Saigon for the Pakistani Army and Air force which made it a target even more valuable than a warship. It was due to arrive at Karachi at 0130 hrs on 5 Dec.1971.In addition to the ship's crew, the ship was also reported to have a number of Pakistani naval officers and sailors onboard for communication and ordnance duties. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-4/harry.html
Venus Challenger  India/Pakistan Conflict(1971)	P-15 Styx ASCM	Sunk. http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html
The contact to the northeast was engaged by missile boat NIPAT with two missiles. The target sank. It was learnt later that this was a merchant ship MV VENUS CHALLENGER. http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm 
The contact to the northeast was engaged by missile boat NIPAT with two missiles. The target sank. It was learnt later that this was a merchant ship MV VENUS CHALLENGER. http://books.google.com/books?id=zFyMKROi46kC&lpg=PA189&vq=venus%20challenger&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false 
BOOK CITATION http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gfOcfi1VK0YC&lpg=PA110&ots=CFg_7VdG6H&dq=%22Venus%20challenger%22&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false 
I think i have given enough citation to prove that the ship MV Venus challenger also needs to be included in the casualty section of Infobox. and [| its wrongfully removed so This edit  ]and [this infobox edit ] needs to be reverted now .--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ya, that is a lot of citations and from credible sources. It should be added.Millertime246 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Added it in the losses section. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
[| With the edit ] there has been an attempt to deliberatively hide the fact that has been presented by the sources in the article . yes it was a merchant ship but it was carrying ammunitions for Pakistan and navy officers and also it was escorted by a Pakistan Navy ship when it was hit by Indian Navy. The above editor seems to be editing and deliberatively hiding facts in order to serve personal interests and spread misinformation that a Civilian ship was wrongly attacked, Deliberate hiding of fact os being done on pretexts of using neutral tone. I strongly object to this incorrect edit . 
The Source ausairpower just gives a table of the type of the ship, and no extra details probably due to space constraints. 
Kindly revert [|  this edit ]--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Also giving a reference from the Website of Indian Navy it was reliably learnt from merchant shipping circles and from Pakistan Navy officers who went over to Bangladesh, as well as from Military Attaches of foreign embassies in Pakistan that this ship had been carrying a near full load of US ammunition from Saigon, for the Pak Army and the Pak Air Force. MV VENUS CHALLENGER, a ship chartered by Pakistan, which had sailed from Saigon, called at Singapore en route and was due to arrive at Karachi at 0130 hrs, on 5 December 1971. In addition to the ship's crew, the ship was reported to have had on board a small number of Pakistan naval officers and sailors for communication and ordnance duties. http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As per discussion in 'Infobox' section, it was decided to use a neutral source. You are pushing Indian navy's pov. Indian Navy websites are non neutral POV for such claim and further more they are being contradicted by by the pakistani sources as per the pak def site. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
[| With this edit you have also removed] the text about the Ammunition information along with citations from the article . this is Deliberate removal of Cited content. The Australian Cite has give the information in a table so it Has rightly mentioned it as Merchant Ship and not Ammuntion Carrier. I have given 4 citations to support my claim . 4 is more than enough . ALso You can not expect the Pakistani NAVY to claim that Venus challenger was carrying the AMmunition for them when it was sunk. This is clearly a clash of interest. I hope you will not remove the content without reason, if you still disagree you are requested to prove if it was not carrying Ammunition using reliable citations. If you still disagree it can be taken for dispute resolution. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In one place you say that I'm giving Pakistani sources and right in next edit you add Indian sources to prove your point. How fair is that? We settled over the neutral source ausairpower and thats what should be followed to maintain a neutral POV. Don't keep on dragging the issue long after the article becomes stable. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have full rights to raise my objections against disruptive edits. I consider it a deliberate removal of content. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Then you should know, repeatedly objecting to settled content or not making an effort to settle for consensus is itself disruptive. WP:POINT & WP:HEAR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Two questions on this.  One, did the Pakistani government ever say anything about this?  Especially wondering if they said something during the conflict and something else afterwards.  Two, is there a way to compromise on the wording?  I'm thinking something along the lines of "The Indian Navy claims that, based on information obtained later, the ship was carrying ammunition for  the Pakistanis."  If there are question about the POV of the source, but not that it reliably reports information, saying who said it can be an effective way to include in the information and make sure the readers are aware of the source and any implicit POV of that source.  Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Pakistan Navy sources say that this specific ship was never sunk and was an Indian exaggeration:[4]
"After the attack INS Tir and INS Kiltan, the two supporting Petyas, had been monitoring our signal traffic and were able to pick up MHQ message ordering Shahjahan to assist Khaibar. This broadcast in plain language enabled the Indian Navy to announce the sinking of Khaibar the very next day. Fortunately, Shahjahan was recalled and thus was saved. The Indian estimates of damage to Shahjahan and sinking of two minesweepers and a merchant ship were exaggerated versions of the result of their missile attack."
Answering your second question; there is a problem with quoting everything like that, it touches the problems of WP:FORK. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Your first statement isn't entirely correct.  Look at this page from the same site:
"The 						circumstances surrounding the sudden disappearance of the merchant vessel Venus 						Challenger from the high seas have remained somewhat of a mystery. It is certain 						though that the ship was sunk in one of the two missile attacks at Karachi."
So it's saying it was sunk, but not sure which specific attack sunk it.  The auairpower.net cite supports it was sunk, but doesn't indicate in which battle.  The Transition to Triumph book does support  it being sunk in the first battle and generally seems to meet the RS criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my reference was to operation trident. And as per other sources I agreed to add it in the article and it is as of now a part of it. But the user dbigxray is trying to imply that the merchant ship was carrying ammunition and wants to edit it to that. The neutral source we agreed to follow calls it a transport ship and not an ammunition carrier. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Zero objections to it being called a merchant ship - that's what it is.  I think there's strong support in sources to point out someplace (controvery section maybe) that the Indian Navy, after the conflict, claims it was carrying ammunition.  It would be pushing a POV not to point out that claim.  Likewise, a note about the Pakistani's not being sure when it sank is probably advisable, along with what they say the ship was carrying (I think I saw rice in some post?).  Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think in that case, Indian claims of the transport/merchant ship carrying ammunition should be attributed to India yet using wording that would not violate WP:FORK. Rest agreed. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
in such cases the Information needs to be properly attributed using Indian claims . Altogether removal of cited content is not done. The ammunitions were being transported by using a cover . Agree it was called a Merchant Ship so in my opinion its ok to place MV in Infobox, but the section of article needs this part of carrying ammunition as well it can be suffexed as indian claim but the presence is important for the clarification of this part. . The ship was also Being Escorted by a Pakistani Naval Ship as the safety of Venus challenger was crucial, moreover as the source claims it also had Naval officers in it. no wonder the Pakistani sources are not accepting this fact. I have given enough sources above for my arguements . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Your current explanation is combination of WP:OR and the Indian claims. I think you should let the sources do the claiming instead of giving your own analysis. Even when attributing the claim, WP:FORK has to be considered. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[| About the edits done by]lTopGunl (talk) . The Chronology of Sequence has to be followed in Historical Articles. And Hence i have placed the content accordingly in the Aftermath section . its not correct to place bombing at okha at the end as it was the part if initial aftermath . The concluding lines of the Aftermath section are fit in their place . Also About the Putting an end to the incursions  the incursions were not ended and Indian Navy again attacked in the Operation Python that is a factually incorrect statement and also not supported by the citations, the citation only talk about the fuel tanks . only the fueling facilities of Okha port were hit and India Had Mobile Oil tanker INS Poshak   and fuel at Diu. Also its not correct to remove the  correctly referenced losses of PAF planes in the attack --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The chronology is still in place. The bombing of okha stopped further incursions. You are confusing... the bombing took place after these twin operations (trident & python). The operation python is mentioned before this text so the chronology is safe. Further more, you reworded the sentence to make it seem like no damages were sustained by India in the bombing of okha. This issue was previously discussed. I hope this was not a removal under a cover up. The shooting down of planes you added is merely an Indian claim and hence a POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Pakistani sources mostly does not acknowledges its loss of Ships and Planes, for obvious reasons. The names are simple removed from their records. If you think that it is just an indian claim , then a suffix indian claim can be added to it. but a complete removal of content is not correct.
Also yes you are messing up with the chronology. Why dont you check the dates when the fuel tanks of okha where destroyed. This a Completely irresponsible attitude of removing content based on personal thoughts without going with the reliable citations. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll say the same problem is with the Indian sources of not acknowledging its loss of ships for the same 'obvious' reasons. Well, you should read Wikipedia:Fork. Just because you can not get to a neutral opinion doesn't warrant forking the opinions by adding suffixes unless ofcourse its a main war article which generally has different claims from each party and neutral sources and a dedicated table is made for that. Wikipedia aims to give a neutral POV. About content: you were the one who removed content and reworded it without explanation. When you remove/added content, its your responsibility to explain it rather than rewording the rest of the text to make it imply different meanings. I've checked the citations and fixed the content accordingly without letting it change its meaning. Also moved the python text to the bottem as per chronology. Review and comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You will be glad to know that India Presents the loss of its ships and Hails the sacrifice of its martyrs eg. INS Khukri, There are many citations including the official navy website that does this.  you should not assume whatever you want . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The chronology is still not correct Zulfikar incident happened on 6dec after okha also your pakdef says that. The Mention of no furthur Incursions is a Clear case of Introducing wp:OR. Clearly  Indian navy did another furthur incursion in The Operation Python on 8 dec. The statement is incorrect and its fit to be removed.
Also the Losses of PAF needs to be mentioned in the attack if the attack is mentioned there. You can remove the attack section of okha  full or you have to include the PAF losses as well you can not cherry pick and remove content. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The bombing of okha was in retaliation to this and is justifiably placed on this article. The source you gave for the losses gives an Indian claim and comes under the POV category. Zulfikar was a friendly fire! Recheck that. I've made it clear that the operation python did take place after the bombing and editing the sentence to "there were no incursions untill operation python" which is in coherence with your claim about python. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
we are not arguing zulfiqars friendly fire . we are discussing the chronology of events. the correct sequence of aftermath is (attack and survivors (already correctly placed)) -> retaliation and losses  of both sides at okha -> Zulfikar ->  rest is correctly placed .  so the places of zulfikar and okha needs to be changed.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the mention of zulfiqar inline with the incursions seemed like you meant that. Yeah, switch those places according to the dates without editing content. Those are fair edits and if you leave an edit summary no one will object. About the losses of aircraft, that is yet under discussion. Your reference was an Indian claim. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not a POV ,its based on a wiki veriafiable source a book. books are widely used for wiki articles.  i dont expect books from pakistan claiming thier losses about this incident.if you still disagree and you think you have a valid point to make , then we can highlight this issue  and we can take the matter to dispute noticeboard. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
the controversy section you placed is also an INDIAN POV with no reliable citations anywhere. it needs to be removed unless we have reliable sources. DONOT use DOUBLE standards and follow same rule everywhere --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Controversy section is already replied to in that section. Indian POV about damages to India seems reasonably valid. Don't compare this completely different issue with that. This is an opposite issue where an Indian source (book in this case) claims the losses of Pakistani aircraft. This is reasonably a claim. These are not double standards, its common sense and the cases are opposite. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am including the losses. you cannot suppress facts based on wp:IDONTLIKE , beware these actions fall into category of disruptive editings. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
All Indian claims are not facts. Pakistani sources have not mentioned any loses and this puts your claim in doubt unless you have a backing from a neutral source. Editing during a continuing discussion counts as editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You really need to read the article wp:RS before you comment any furthur based on your wp:IDONTLIKE. follow wiki rules and edit accordingly --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
[5][6][7] None of these mention such loss. Your claims seem POV (RS or not - they are not neutral). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit request}}
[| with this edit ] there has been a deliberate hiding of Pakistani casualty in the Okha bombing. It needs to be reinstated. 
i have given the sources for my claim. from the book here url=http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XM5oZYYvEmYC&lpg=PA124&ots=tCMRHmoxZk&dq=1971%20okha%20harbour&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false  book|last=Sagar|first=Krishna Chandra|title=The war of the twins|year=1997|publisher=Northern Book Centre|isbn=9788172110826|pages=120|  There has been a number of occasions where the losses of Pakistani ships and planes have not been claimed by Pakistani sources (for obvious reasons). I have given proper sources and this needs to be included in the Attack at okha section also. It seems to me a clash of Interest. And only one sided mentioning of the facts. needs to be added as well, as  wiki articles are neutral and present a non biased version of events. if the Bomibing of okha mentions thhat Fuel tanks were damaged, then it also needs to mention that PAF planes were shot during the incident as cited. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{Request edit}} cancelled for now; please discuss and show consensus before requesting a specific edit. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Trident (1971). 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)