Talk:Operation Dwarka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment 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 class rating[edit]

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)


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 [1] contains details of 2 first hand accounts of the extent of damage done during the attack and a further link to a Pakistani site [2] 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 [such as this]. regards --dBigXray (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is about Dwarka[edit]

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)


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. Wikipedia 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 it is already blacklisted. please go through . 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 [| recent edits that you have made]? 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 ([to ]) partial naval success ([| changed to ] ->) Pakistani naval success ??[edit]

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)

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 [[3]]
I also found a neutral third party book that it was a successful operation.

Operation Dwarka [Taschenbuch] Lambert M. Surhone (Herausgeber), Mariam T. Tennoe (Herausgeber), Susan F. Henssonow (Herausgeber), ISBN-10: 6135333615, ISBN-13: 978-6135333619 [4] (this book [5] is based on wikipedia article )

You're own citation[6] 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 [continuous editing of this article]. 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 [you have removed them ].
  • Pakistani naval failure ([to ]) partial naval success ([| changed to ] ->) Pakistani naval success.??
  • the book Operation Dwarka [Taschenbuch] 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 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.

Wikipedia 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 [7] 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 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)

  • 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 [8] 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 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 here --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There has been some recent developments and it seems that the Surhone's book [9] 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)

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. [Pakistan Intelligence, Security Activities & Operations Handbook By IBP USA] [India's Quest for Security: defence policies, 1947-1965 By Lorne John Kavic, 1967, University of California Press, pp 190]. Here are some more [10] [11] [12]. Not to mention it led questions being asked in the parliament [13]. 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. [14].
  • 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)

OK...after all this discussion, what is the conclusion? My suggestion is to keep it as partial success or failure to achieve all objectives in infobox as none of the source (in the infobox) give the impression that operation was successful. It is to be noted that mere success of the attack will not constitute success of the operation. Even in that case appropriate source is required which explicitly state that the operation was successful. However, if source(s) are found to substantiate achievement of listed objectives of the mission, infobox can be updated. Also, lot of sources were given as link, and upon going through each one, I found none contained information that they were supposedly claimed to have contained. I request anyone posting the link to copy paste/quote exactly from the source (in talk page) so that it is easy to find it. -Adi (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Adi

Removing citations from article[edit]

any reason for removing the citations [[15]] 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. [16] --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Neutral Assessment[edit]

Undid revision 458885347 by Mustihussain . 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 [17]. 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, [18], 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 of now its still there on the article as a citation no 1 wrongly used by the editors here . --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 . 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. Wikipedia: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)
you write my name and then you ask me not to comment? this is a talk page and nothing stops me from commenting, Giving a relevant citations by a foreign author is by no means a POV (do you want to dispute this also ? )--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The radar was not destroyed[edit]

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)

yes The Radar was not hit heres another Citation in support
  • User:Mustihussain has said of a couple of sources that they left out mention of the radar in damage assessment. The point I'm making is that if they were indeed damaged, it would be reported in Indian media being a democracy; such things cannot be hidden especially near a large town, it would have had political consequences especially in Morarji Desai's time. He is right, Dittmer makes no mention of the radar station not being damaged either. My bad for not doing a thorough check. Thanks for pointing it out Mustihussain. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
no prob, bob. it seems that third-party sources consistently fail to evaluate the destiny of this radar. if this really is the case it obliges us to write a line about it, along with the indian (not-hit) and pakistani (hit) views. such omissions are typically caused by lack of reliable data.-- mustihussain  19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I dont think we have a source yet that says the radar was hit.On the contrary to what the above user has said, no reliable source either Indian or Pakistani says that radar was hit. Even the Pak gov official website does not say about the radar being hit. This is an unchallenged fact of this incident. giving a POV without backing with a source will serve no purpose.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 09:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hence my placement of a {{cn}} tag. Given reasonable time that the fact is without citation, it can be removed. If RS are found, it can be added later on but the sources need to be reliable third party sources. AshLin (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Mustihussain, a careful re-reading of the Hiranandani source (the official IN history) reveals that a team was sent to assess the exact damage assessed (last line, pg 35-pg 36):

Next morning she (INS Talwar) was directed to send a team to Dwarka to assess the damage. The team found that most of the shells had fallen on the soft soil between the temple and the radio station and failed to explode. The air attack had damaged a railway engine and blown off a portion of a railway guesthouse.

Your thesis that absence of mention means the information on the destruction of radar is unspecified does not hold water. If there were any damage, it would have been mentioned here. I am re-introducing the IN source.

AshLin (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
what thesis? i wrote: if this really is the case....-- mustihussain  22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The "PNS Ghazi keeps Vikrant besieged in Mumbai" urban legend[edit]

The unsubstantiated assertions that :

According to some Pakistani sources, one submarine, PNS Ghazi, kept the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier INS Vikrant besieged in Bombay throughout the war. a myth. It is completely false, as is proven by Hiranandani's account of the role played by IN in the 1965 conflict - the Vikrant alongwith many other ships was in refit. It is also debunked by Iqbal Qadir, in his analysis of the three wars fought by Pakistan. The [citation needed] tag has also drawn no response. The unsubstantiatedurban legend has been removed. Please provide reliable sources and discuss on talk page before re-introduction. AshLin (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Indian Navy after Dwarka[edit]


The Pakistan study that Dwarka led to an expansion is an assessment by the unknown authors of, a source under scrutiny as a reliable source. I have not removed the source, which I could have but used appropriate language which referred to it as a source. The article does not credit any sources except for loose reference of a book in the opening paragraphs.

Your use of pg 77 of Dittmer as a reference is a red herring. Have you even read pg 77 of Dittmer? There is no mention of the expansion of the IN much less it being due to Dwarka. Just adding refs without checking is harming your reputation.

On the other hand, Vice Admiral Gulab Hiranandani, is the official historian of the Indian Navy, and authored a huge three-volume trilogy of the Indian Navy's history. His text includes very much everything this article contains, except for trivia. It also quotes from the official history of the Pakistan Navy.

The book has many pages and chapters where the genesis of expansion of IN is referred to as a result of the post-1962 expansion of the IN. The expansion was in fact planned in 1948 itself but the Navy was starved of funds and came about post-1962 when adequate funds were made available to it. The majority of surface vessels received during the period between 1865 and 1971 were signed in a Defence deal on 01 September 1965. He has given facts whereas the is an assessment, in this case, mistaken.

Wikipedia is not just about edit-warring. Please read the sources which have been cited for verification carefully and be NPOV. This kind of incorrect valuation of sources could be read as willful mischievous editing, which it would be very difficult to answer.

I am reverting your edit by rephrasing appropriately.

AshLin (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the source has not been tag as unreliable yet, you being an opposing editor on that matter would be wrong to remove the source even before the consensus is reached. As for your allegation of editwarring, please note that when you are reverted you are not supposed to reinstate the same material, edit summary is not a place for repetitive reasoning when the editing gets non mutual. On a revert, its your obligation to let the previous version reign and come for discussion on talk. If I inserted the reference, I think I added it from the main 71 war article where it was cited. I'll verify the reference, my edit summary comment was on you letting the dittmer reference stay there and yet quote it as a Pakistani claim which will appear fishy to any neutral reader. About the book you tagged, even being a historian, the fact remains that it is an Indian source that should be acknowledged when referring to claims that seem to be controversial. You should read WP:GOODFAITH before assuming mischievous editing on other editors since your own addition was a bit inconsistent with the citations. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I said "could be read as...". I did not assert it as a case. A friendly note to you. AshLin (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So seemed the implication of the phrase. And that's why I only cited a wiki policy in return. I guess you are now clear of my intentions for that edit. For other edits we are making to the citations be sure to come to talk on reverts and clearing up instead of implying that I might be edit warring as well as keeping in mind who got reverted. Mutual editing on other hand has cleaned this article to quite an extent. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the reference "Hiranandani" and found out that these contracts were signed in 1965 with soviets. Before that Britain was India's supplier. Another source from defence journal also supports this fact of India's naval expansion in response to Dwarka. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hassannh5, contrary to your statement, I do not think you have reviewed my referencing. The crucial fact here is whether Dwarka was responsible for the expansion or not. The reference I had given was for page 4 to 11 of Hiranandani for the chapter titled "The growth of the Navy till 1965" which begins on page 1. Anyone reading these gets the complete story of the Indian Navy's quest for expansion from 1947 to 1965, including the period post its 1962 debacle with China. Page 8 has a section in the right hand column titled "Developments 1963 to 65". The third line below the list of bulleted points reads "China was viewed as the primary threat." On subsequent pages, you can read of Britain's limited ability and the Soviet Union's eagerness to supply the IN, as they favoured the idea of a strong In counter-balancing the PLA (Navy). The reasons for big ship expansion, which your sources attribute, are only China, not Pakistan, despite the 1965 War and its single raid and single ship sinking. There is no mention of Dwarka in this paragraph. These were all set into motion due to 1962 and after the war, all purchases negotiated before and after the 1965 war
On the other hand, do a search on Dwarka in Hiranandani and you will find in its 21 links that only one link deals with Dwarka's effect on Naval acquisitions which is on pg 326 - the Navy's decision to get a few missile boats boats as part of plan of Defense of Kutch. Incidentally their success in 1971 at Karachi led to the increase of the fleet. That is - IN got missile boats as part of plan of Defense of Kutch, because of the Dwarka raid. Their success in 1971 led to the expansion of the missile boat fleet post-1971. This newly discovered fact has been added by me. But to claim that the entire IN changed its posture and expanded multifold because of a single raid where no casualties took place or equipment was damaged is hard to believe especially when reliable source contradicts the issue and in a verifiable manner.
Your treating Hiranandani as a source for the incorrect view of Dwarka being responsible for complete expansion of India's Navy is wrong. Hiranandani contradicts your point of view. Saying that you added it as a reference to expansion would be incorrect because anybody who reads the source will come to know that your point of view is contradicted, especially as you have deleted the Indian explanation altogether.
Next, your judgement about the value of sources is incorrect. The detailed history by an official historian will score over a couple of short web pages anytime, especially as one of the sources is under investigation (albeit undecided as of now) makes it worse. However, I have not removed your sources but kept them. The text I have added balances and presents both points of view. Whereas your version deletes the Indian reason (not reasoning) completely which is verified in detail by Hiranandani. The deletion of a referenced Indian point of view is incorrect on your part.
Lastly, I request you to please do read the references provided and analyse them carefully. Please stick to exact detail, precise interpretation and clear logic; that is what will improve the article, not the continued reiteration of your beliefs. I have worked very hard to find the references and succeeded in getting to the bottom of the issue at hand. If you find yourself unable to accept that my edits are referenced, verified and in NPOV on this issue, this discussion should be referred to WP:RSN where the merits of Hiranandani vs the two web pages can be evaluated, and subsequently to a content dispute. AshLin (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I did review your reference, and if you reviewed the journal I provided, that also mentions china as being one of the reasons (with Dwarka being another one). But you can't remove content because one of the Indian references fails to mention the word Dwarka along with the word expansion. On other hand you added a statement that mislead into understanding that Dwarka had nothing to do with the expansion which now you quote otherwise (and have added in the text). I never claimed that the entire posture was due to Dwarka. You need to stop assuming comments from my side too. What I added was only the fact that this raid let to the expansion which was right with this being one of the reasons.
About the citations that you say you didn't remove, I have previously mentioned that it's not your place to remove a reference of which your are an opposing editor in the on going dispute. Not only that, that text is further backed up by the journal and some what from your own reference.
On one hand you repeatedly add the fact the the claim of Dwarka raid being a reason for expansion is of Pakistani sources while on other hand you add an Indian source (RS or not) to refute the claim without mentioning that the source is Indian. That is a valid reason to say that you have a certain POV here. You label me with reiterating my beliefs while you are unable to be self reflective and see the POV pushing you did your self. My whole point is not about an RSN for the reference you added. It's about the fact that reference itself states and how it compares to other references. They sum up with China & Dwarka raid being the major reasons. In anycase the reference is to be taken as an Indian source and be put in balance with the Pakistan sources I added. If it misses the mention of Dwarka being a reason (which you now found out it hasn't fully discredited it) it is suspected with bias and a neutral POV has to be put up when in contradiction. I'm currently not reverting your edit, instead amending it to say that the sentence you added account to an Indian source similarly to the previous sentence being referred to be from a Pakistani one. I'll review the source again and see what else I can find. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The content is acceptably framed as of now, let it stand. I completely disagree about your assessment of sources not because they are Indian or Pakistani but because of their relative merits. The Lodi journal article itself is completely biased - see his statement on incompetence of Indian army and air force in Kargil war as cause for Indian posturing. Anyway, any article published in a national defence magazine which is not peer-reviewed is inferior to an article in a respected neutral defence journal which has peer-reviews such as the Naval College Review where Hiranandani has also written. I also find it amazing that the Indian reason for expansion surely which the Indian's know is POV and what the Pakistani's must guess for themselves is NPOV as per your treatment. As regards POV pushing, I had only added the Indian view and kept mention of Pakistani POV whereas it was you who had deleted the Indian POV completely. But that is another story for another day. AshLin (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In the first place you based your arguments on the sources being Indian or Pakistani with your amendment to the sentence attributing the source as a Pakistani source. His statement about the Indian army is normal in such articles and there are many such that I came across that would bias your source. But taking that something as understood, I didn't feel it was important to bring that up. Sneak in defences related to valuation to edits based on the nature of the source is pretty biased itself. Infact, neutrality (not reliability) of a source from a person who was actually a participant of the conflict will be under consideration always. If you think that the Pakistanis just guessed the reasons for Indian naval expansion while Indians (who do know) are telling the exact reasons which were there is your own WP:OR because the claim is published on a defence journal where as you are merely giving an opinion on that. It wasn't even contradicted in real sense (or at all) by the source you presented. Adding Indian view and keeping mention of Pakistani view, that's exactly what bias means, and that's why I removed the whole statement. The statement not being there won't account to any POV but mention of one side which leads the reader think that the raid had no effect on the Indian expansion certainly does. Anyway, I also consider the current content written in acceptable form so I guess this will stand. I'll review the citation when I have some extra time so that we can add any other left over details. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC) not a reliable source[edit]

The source is not considered a reliable source anymore. The refs need to be replaced and articles re-aligned where contentions are NOT verifiable. AshLin (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef is not solely supporting anything on this article except objectives I guess (which are not disputed). The citation just needs a replacement. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani Naval success?[edit]

The infobox shows this operation as a a "Pakistani naval success", and cites this to three sources. The last two of these are by Pakistani military personnel (and one of them does not make any explicit claims of success either), while the first (page 84) says clearly that the only loss on the Indian side was that of a cow and seems to be concerned mostly with the Indian Navy's mandate of not engaging with the Pakistani Navy. I wonder if this claim of "success" is therefore warranted. At the very least, I am removing citations to the two sources that do not make such a claim. Piyush (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article also makes some really surreal statements like the following: "Operation Dwarka was a significant naval operation of the 1965 war, considered by some as a nuisance raid or of little strategic value." However, I do not have sufficient expertise in the subject to attempt a unilateral change. Piyush (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this has been debated in much detail.. see the sections above. I've moved the sources back. If you want to source the other sections, feel free to use the ref tags instead of removing the sources from original place. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced contents can only be added back after satisfying WP:BURDEN, I have restored the article accordingly--DBigXray 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest you restore the sources which had nothing to do with your revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources were wrongly placed to support the content they did not talked, which source exactly do you want me to change ? --DBigXray 12:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
That has already been discussed before and I don't think we changed the result of that discussion. Move all the sources back and if you want to source other sections with them too.. use the ref tags after naming them. I'm fine by keeping the objectives off until sourced though that does not seem constructive to me. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
see WP:SYNTHESIS, source misrepresentation cannot be restored.--DBigXray 13:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
And yet they can be removed under fake edit summaries about different content? There's much disagreement on you already and the removing editor explicitly said he did not intend to editwar. You've continued your previous edit war from the sections above. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
read the explanation below, unless this needs to be addressed first.--DBigXray 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the debate above, and I am still not convinced that the two sources I removed say anything about the "success" or "failure" of the mission: tehy don't seem to be addressing this issue at all. The Pakistan Navy source at least addresses the issue, so I left it in there. I don't think there is any reason to keep those two sources there, though perhaps there is a case for keeping the statement about a "naval success" in. This last should, in my opinion, be cited solely to the Pakistan navy source, since the other two sources seem to have nothing to do with it. I am, however, not making the change now (I hate people getting into edit revert cycles).

Secondly, and this is perhaps more important: you quoted in the discussion above that one of the books says:
'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.'
I searched Google with the quoted phrase, and the only citation I could find was to this book, which has a blurb clearly stating the following (emphasis mine): Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Are you sure this is not just a massive case of circular citation? I ask only because I have seen this once before, in the article on the Pythagoras Theorem. While debating the reliability of the sources of a few statements in the article, we found that one of the seemingly least controversial statements (at least to that pool of editors) was cited to a book which seemed to have copied it from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Piyush (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... this was discussed in much detail and I guess I'll not have much to say than repeating what I said in previous discussions where I covered this in detail. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is never used to reference the wiki articles. The sources that are based on wikipedia articles are termed as Mirror sources and can never be used as references. You are free to remove them whenever you come across them. --DBigXray 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Because this is a very controversial fact, RSs are needed for it. Wikipedia is not a RS, and thus this should be removed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As per the last stable version[20] there was no claim of success. So there has to a consensus before adding anything about the success since it was just a Pakistan's claim and not supported by the neutral sources. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    As seen on the sources above, I find it much better to blank the result parameter. Apart from these issues, @Mar4d: why you had removed the {{unreferenced section}} from Operation Dwarka#Popular culture? It is concerned with the WP:BLP. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've restored a version with no result. Mar4d seems to have enough time to revert but no time to respond to a talk discussion which he himself insisted we start. ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The News is reliable source. You are not listening to others. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@TheSawTooth: It has been discussed for years that it is still not enough for claiming any "success". There was no "strategic value".[21] And your blanket revert also removed the {{unreferenced section}} from Operation Dwarka#Popular culture, it is also concerned with unsourced WP:BLP information. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you remove it is national holiday? It is not BLP because it is not insulting to living person. TV show was real. The News is reliable it is international newspaper. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Why you are not discussing your WP:OR anymore? Again, how it is possible that there would be any success when the operation had no strategic value? The mention of a writer under Operation_Dwarka#Popular_culture concerns a living person, you cannot remove maintenance tags until you have actually repaired them. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We will discuss everything you deleted sir. Please do not delete that it is national holiday. Drama is not OR. You are original researching strategic value. Reference is success. Why are you not discussing all changes? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus for those new edits, restoring to former is what we do per WP:CONSENSUS, restoring to a preferred poor version is actually imbalanced. It is original research since none of your sources claim that Pakistan had successful naval operation in Dwarka. You cannot remove the maintenance tags until you have resolved the issues, but so far you haven't. Check this [22] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Means you can delete everything in middle because of one thing or two things? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Now I am not getting you. You have to source information if it has been challenged. As per WP:VERIFY you can insert unsourced information that you believe to be verifiable, however, if they have been tagged then you will have to first add a source to it, sometimes sources are also challenged for both valid and invalid reasons, but if the reasons are valid, then you will have to find a better source. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


I reinstated the old "Objectives" section (which had been removed for lack of citations) with an inline citation to the Pakistan Navy source (which was already cited elsewhere in the article). However, I found that the old section was copied verbatim from the source. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this matter should therefore try to carefully paraphrase the section. Piyush (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Failure?[edit]

I could be wrong but the article lists the following objectives To draw heavy enemy units out of Bombay for the submarine PNS Ghazi to attack. To destroy the radar installation at Dwarka. To lower Indian morale. To divert Indian Air Force effort away from the north. fir this it gives the following source Unspecified. "History". Pakistan Navy. Retrieved 10 November 2011. a link that does not seem to open or exist.

Furthermore in the infobox it reads "partial success" i've read the discussions on the talk page on this, but in combination of the facts that the source does not seem to exist at this time and that none of the stated objectives seems to have been achieved at the time, something which all people taking part in the discussion agree about, perhaps we could change the status of the op to failure. DISCLOSURE: I am indian and so am naturally biased, however i think i'm justified here. if there is another source, preferably non-pakistani (something the earlier source was not) and non-indian which thus fulfills NPOV status and states that the operation was a success i will gladly change it back. Thank you Tca achintya (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, if an existing reference said something, but is now dead, then you cannot just change that fact. Here, you are not only changing what the cited reference said, you are reversing that. So, you need to find another source which says what you believe is correct, before making the change. Hence, it is advisable that you self-revert. In my opinion, what you are doing is synthesis and original research. Of course, the Pak navy source may be biased, but since it is the only cited source, it is advisable to keep the article to what is said. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to get into any sort of conflict, but the article itself lists the objectives. nowhere in the article does it say that the objectives were achieved. And since i cannot view the source i dont know if that's what it said too. All i'm saying is that since the article lists the objectives and the navy failed to accomplish said objectives (again not my conclusions, this is based on what the article says) thus changed it to failed. I believe that i simply brought it into line with the rest of the article

perhaps it would be best to simply remove the line on result? after all if there is no concrete information on it perhaps it is best to write unresolved or maybe not mention the result. If there is only a dead source to validate it, maybe we are better served by either removing the result line or writing unresolved rather than failed?

Well, other sources do say that Pak navy did achieve their objective - to stop air attacks etc. But since the Indian sources dispute that, i support the removal of the 'Result' field in the info box, till further info is available. It is unclear, unnecessary and including it does not enhance the quality of the article in any significant way. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Dwarka. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Dwarka. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)