Talk:Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971

Note

I have spent days working on this article/project. Contributions are most welcomed here but do not modified this page which is simply based on politics, nationalism, and hatred. The article should represents true and neutral facts. The results and conclusions of the war are already stated in the infobox. So, please do not change it. It is what it is. The naval operations were successfully led by the Indian Navy on both sides (Eastern and Western water borders). The Pakistan Navy had failed to achieved any primary goals except for sinking the INS Khurki.

Also, Rear-Admiral Mohammad Sharif had served as the Flag Officer Commanding (FOC) of the East-Pakistan naval operations. So his name is listed (with a surrender flag). In the end, please make contributions in the article but keep in mind, the contributions must show the picture of neutrality and based on true facts. As per request, do not politicize this article.

Thank you.

I wish you had spent more time revising your article. There are numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes. Moitraanak (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Source?

Several edits by user User_talk:Ironboy11 are almost always cited with one reference, a site called PakDef[[1]]. This site, like most forums nowadays, has a article section and these edits are all based on that. No clarification as to the source of these original and rather innovative articles is made by the site. I am going to assume it as an unreliable source, if you have some information proving otherwise or any objection at all than please state it. Swift&silent (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• RSN concludes it as not non-RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

• an Imp Results of the NAVAL war was the BLockade of Karachi port. which was one of the reasons for surrender by Pakistan army as their main supply route the Karachi port was Blocked after the Operation Trident.

all i could find about the The Bombing at okha was that the bombing at okha harbour had destroyed the FUEL Storage tanks. --dBigXray (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cease Fire was the immediate aftermath of the Signing of Instrument of Surrender by General Niazi on 16 December 1971. as a result of which the 1971 war was halted--dBigXray (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all you could find was, those fuel talks were damaged, and yet you reverted that cited information in your edit. That constitutes vandalism.

India could not conduct any further major missions in the west after destruction of those fuel tanks.

Signing of surrender in the east has been untouched. No issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Background

I have restored the Content related to the Operation Dwarka. this is not POV please do not revert it, Discuss it here before reverting. --dBigXray (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Operation Dwarka talkpage for relevance and to prevent confusion discussing on two places. The information provided was biased. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Attack on Karachi

i have rescued and restored the text and information about PNS Zulfikarair raid. Soon after the raid, the PNS Zulfikar was unable to perform her active duty, leaving the West Pakistani shores and coasts defenseless.
restored the text about the Karachi port that is The Karachi port was severely damaged and was left burning. The operation further crippled the Pakistani economy, and it had also paralyzed the Pakistan naval operations in western coast.

• User:Hassanhn5 was there any particular reason of removing [this ] text ? please discuss it before reverting or editing again. thanks -- --dBigXray (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited this part after reviewing citation. It was not a raid on PNS Zulfiqar, it was a friendly fire as its still left cited in the article. I assume even more sources can be found for this. This ship was immediately called back to port and repaired. (cited in the same link). The end part is very india motivated, don't you think so? Such an aggressive tone only suits an Indian news channel/website, not an encyclopedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Article still says friendly fire. If you can give a credible citation that Zulfiquar was repaired and in service then ofcourse no one will revert your edits.

Remember the Golden Rule- It is upto the person removing/changing the text to give valid reasons. In the end: On one hand you condemn Indian media (many of them in list of WP:RS) and question their neutrality, on the other hand you almost exclusively cite your edit by forum PakDef an Non:Reliable source! Swift&silent (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef is not a forum, its a military consortium. Check again, don't mislead. The user dbigxray has been using pakdef where ever it suited him and removing it where ever it didnt go with his POV. That being said, yes, article says friendly fire. I said that. But you haven't read above users comment. It was a reply to that. And your current revert has again called it a raid. You seem to be self contradicting. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If he is using an PakDef 'when it suits him' then he is equally wrong. Tell me about said pages I will take the issue to him myself. As this the standing policy of Wikipedia that only reliable sources be used and PakDef is a Non:Rs. Same goes for many Indian, American, and defense forums of various other countries. Almost none of them are WP:RS.

And please, dont take the reverts personally. We are all on the mission to make Wikipedia an credible source of information so unreliable sources are reverted. And about Zulfiquar, just add an credible source that it was repaired and we are good.

Almost forgot- Raid part simply means the raid by PAF on their own ship and nothing else. I found no mention of anything stating otherwise. Swift&silent (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, pakdef is a military consortium and not a forum. As for the Indian websites, they come into category of Indian sources and not neutral (reliability is another thing which might also come in question). Raid part: the word raid is misleading even though friendly fire is mentioned, the word raid is contradicting it.

These are not the only parts that were reverted by you. Other phrases like "economy crippled", "port left burning" etc, are definately a very aggressive tone for an encyclopedia. See wp:pov and wp:truth.

Reverts arn't taken personal. Reckless editing without explanation and change the article tone to aggressive is disruptive editing. Most of your comments count towards Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT --lTopGunl (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To cripple is to severely damage. This is used in military articles throughout wikipedia. Just because someone finds truth not to his liking is not a valid ground for removal. And still you havent gave the citation for repair of Zulfiquar.

And as I and many others have repeatedly told you Forums like PakDef arent reliable source. It was made clear in source list that it is Non:RS. Swift&silent (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Friends i would like to make my stand clear on this issue as i have been quoted above . Inspite of what hassan may say"I HAVE NEVER EVER USED PAK DEF" as a citation source for my editings. I saw some articles where this citations were there but i did not remove this citation and associated content and left it as it is (leaving as it is does not means endorsement). Besides i have Rescued a number of citations that were damaged in many articles (knowingly or unknowingly) by Hasan where he has done multiple editings. If in some article i have rescued the citations that is because with the broken citations it becomes difficult for the editors to review the content and edit or remove it. If you Still feel that i have deliberately inserted PAKDEF as a citation to my text please inform me i would CLEAN AND CLEAR it completely this time. regards --dBigXray (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• lTopGunl (talk) if you Disagree with the simple fact that (the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info ) that has already been rejected by WIkipedia as a NON RELIABLE SOURCE then i invite you to please go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info . if you are still not happy with that you can take that matter to the noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and get your case heard, and you can give whatever arguements or counter arguements in support of making http://www.pakdef.info a reliable source. 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. I would suggest you to first get pakdef info, cleared by WIKIPEDIA before using it (as it is already blacklisted) inspite of whatever you may say . regards --dBigXray (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• RSN concludes it as not non-RS.--lTopGunl (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

3 PAF Planes shot in Okha

About this edit the citation is for the incident of Attack by PAF on Okha harbour.Its not misquoting as wrongly alleged. lets not introduce our own wp:OR for removing content like this one need to have a solid proof and citation against or else its disruptive editing.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the edit summary? Review your citation, those three planes mentioned were on 6th, 9th and 12th dec. None of the dates match the okha harbour attack in question (and you claim all three on that). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

i saw it but the dates u have said are not mentioned. can you be more precise and point out the pages as well--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the book, It says three planes were shot down at okha. Then in later pages it mentions the dates. It tells the date of one plane being shot down on Dec 9 in specific mentioning another one being shot down three days earlier. That takes out two planes out of your claim. A third was shot down on 12th, which has a dedicated article about Wing commander Middlecoat. I guess you should review the pages of the book yourself since you are citing as your proof (I didn't note the page no's but I did review in detail, so you won't be troubled finding them if you were intent on presenting a verified citation). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

Why should Saudi Arabia and America be listed as belligerents if they weren't engaged in the actual war?--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they supported Pakistan. They sent army equipment, financial aid, moral support, opposition to dismemberment of Pak, etc. The references provided support the fact. Faizan 15:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't make them belligerents. A US arms embargo on Pakistan was officially in place, as noted in this state department report, so it's ridiculous to term them a belligerent. Listing Saudi Arabia is also ridiculous, since it was not militarily engaged in any way.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to opt for an RfC, etc. Like I did at other articles like Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Otherwise get to a dispute resolution. The references provided assert the support of both Saudi Arabia and US, although it may be unofficial. Faizan 06:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to wage an RfC for every single minor edit as you love to do. Stop sticking to your delusions, the references speak of covert assistance, not official military engagement. There's a big difference. Anyways, I don't expect you of all people to understand since you're clearly a rabid nationalist. You cannot list them as belligerents, as you have in this article and other the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War article.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rabid Nationalist? Come on man, stop this, or be ready for ANI. Faizan 06:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: 'supported by'

Edit summary didn't catch it fully so adding it here.. OccultZone, could we just add here? or do you think soviets never supported India? (also supported by was the right heading, don't remove that.. US didn't engage India) If it's the first case, it's a good way to get it sourced... else revert away, I wont consider it editwar WP:IAR. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it was a new change with no reflection on the article, the revert could be justified. You can check Indo-Pakistani_Naval_War_of_1971#Background, it is tagged with {{citation needed}} for over 3 years. Time to clean up that section now. Soviet Union didn't provide any financial aid, or continuously provided heavy military equipment along with the operators like Saudi Arabia/US did for Pakistan, Soviet Union cannot be added. Soviet Union is mentioned only once in the article, while the United States and Saudi Arabia have been well mentioned and sourced to reliable sources. Soviet Union provided moral support at most. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the supported by maybe the right heading. You can insert it. I only reverted because it included the United States as well as the US navy, it looked like the US as a whole nation separated from its Navy. It also included Pakistan Navy, although the Pakistan' Navy played the role of belligerent. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed it for now.. I remember there used to be a source for soviet support (or maybe that was in the main 71 war article.. I'll restore it once I find that edit). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to infobox

123.237.136.133 You haven't sourced most of the material that you are adding. How do you even consider that Soviet Navy had participated in this war? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130511153500/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1971_kills.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1971_kills.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114211740/http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm to http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210190959/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk:80/history.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20111207060927/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/MONITOR/ISSUE4-4/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-4/harry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114211740/http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm to http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/Trans2Trimph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926174134/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html

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

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) 18:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 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/20060915093344/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301204938/http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm to http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vif2_project/indo_pak_war_1971.htm

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) 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 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/20160110154941/http://frontierindia.net/british-aircraft-carrier-hms-eagle-tried-to-intervene-in-1971-india-pakistan-war/ to http://www.frontierindia.net/british-aircraft-carrier-hms-eagle-tried-to-intervene-in-1971-india-pakistan-war
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128104709/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128104709/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html
• 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319212243/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html

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) 12:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious error in Background section.

The second to last sentence of the background states: "The Indian Navy added a submarine squadron to its combatant fleet by acquiring six Osa missile ship from the Soviet Union." This clearly doesn't make sense since the Osa is a surface ship. I do not have the knowledge to correct this, only see the error. 77.86.117.208 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

fixed Llammakey (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Unwarranted listing of Soviet Union in sidebar

The sidebar mentions Soviet Union as a belligerent. It also mentions a Soviet admiral in the Leaders and Commanders section of the sidebar. However, there is no mention of Soviet activity in the body of the article. Soviet Union didn't militarily take part in this war. I believe Soviet Union should be listed as a supporter of India rather than a belligerent. Czar-peter-123 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom is an alleged combatant?

instead of being in the "supported by" section it is listed as an active combatant? This is not some obvious fact of the war, you need a reference for that. 121.45.122.159 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed "supported by" being used with the combatant parameters

The result of Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter is that the use of "supported by" in the infobox is discouraged and should be removed by default. I have removed it.

The problem with it in this article is much the same as discussed by participants in the RfC. For one, "supported by" can mean almost anything, as a result of which it ends up with no clear meaning. One of the sources cited here for being a supporting country is what that country's representative said during UN debates. 104 countries voted the same way when a resolution was voted on. Should all be listed as supporting countries? No, of course not. The subtleties and complexities of support can't be conveyed in an infobox, they need to be explained in the text.

If anyone wants to restore "supported by" to the infobox, they should first establish a local consensus that this conflict is one of the rare exceptions to the rule, where such a section in the infobox would be good. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be restored because these countries had a physical presence in this battle. Capitals00 (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)