Talk:Sinking of PNS Ghazi

NOTE

A refrence to a Russian site has been taken because of lack of netural sources. Use google translate for translation

Feel free to add more sources if you find--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge this article with the main aritcle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Articles have been merged

---

Technically this article should be a section of the article PNS Ghazi. Request to merge it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - per WP:WikiProject Ships, no point having a separate article page. See SMS Emden (1908) for comparison. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hassan, I think it is quite clear that there will be no objection to this proposal after more than two weeks of deliberation. Please proceed with the merger, I'll help in whatever area I can. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I too was waiting for objections, I guess there are none. I'll go ahead with the process. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

use of Pakdef.info as citations

(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 I propose to the editors the removal of citations of pakdef.info and any text that are added based on the citations from pakdef.info --dBigXray (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Check RSN for new updates. [1] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• RSN concludes it as not non-RS. Source re-added. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Broken references

Some broken references need repairing. I added the missing ref tags but the named references are still not properly linked. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

that is because you are messing up with the citations and trying to cover them up with references that are not even related sometime . please see the section below. --dBigXray (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot fixed them. It would be better if you do more reading than putting on baseless allegations. They are taken as personal attacks which you deny over and over. And there's no section below (yet). I guess this discussion is over since the bot repaired the references. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• check again . it took me a while to comment. you can reply below it. lets discuss on the article and the validity of edits rather than other stuff here . --dBigXray (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of multiple citations and sources from the article. ?? POV pushing.

{{Request edit}} The following discussion is about [| the multiple edits done recently ] in the article where many citations have been remove and associated texts altered. The editors are expected to explain their edits one by one.

User lTopGunl (talk has cited a book Seapower: a guide for the twenty-first century By Geoffrey Till at a number of places ,though The book mentions about the submarine Ghazi only once where it says PNS ghazi sank under somewhat mysterious circumstances[| click here ] The citation of this book have been wrongly inserted at a number of places perhaps to give the reviewrs an impression that the change are cited.

1 [| this removal of content] needs definite explanation

2 number of men on PNS ghazi [|changed from 92 to 93] uncited change

3 [| Inclusion ] of INS Vikrant in the sinking of Ghazi ? It was INS Rajput that was involved in Sinking of PNS ghazi in Vishakhapatnam not INS Vikrant. INS Vikrant was in the Andaman Port. (see a cite from this article http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf )

4 [|Removal of Citations] to prove your one's POV and hide it from other editors

5 [| using misleading ] edit summary to hide the removal of facts.

6 [added another POV] and [| also again ]that INS vikrant was escaped to safety. without any citations . the citation mentioned nowhere stated that INS Vikrant escaped to safety

7 [| removal of cited content] giving citations that does not mention the mentioned texts at all see http://books.google.co.in/books?id=tsWpeumtH_8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Till,+Geoffrey&hl=en&ei=hK6dTpDUB8XrrQeGhpTJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=ghazi&f=false

8 [| using wiki non reliable source] for adding content on a wiki article.

9 [| adding ] uncited content to prove one's POV

also the site pakdef.info wiki non reliable source [| see above] subsection, so it must not be used to cite any wiki article and content associated with it has been wrongly inserted and needs to be removed. --dBigXray (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you should learn to review citations and add "citation needed" tag to the text if the citations are invalid or not present (unless the text is trivially wrong), add an edit summary and allow other editors to add citations. It helps improve the article quality without loosing information to which some citation might be added.

• [2] This was an Indian point of view placed in the Pakistani version of the incident as you can clearly see. Also, this seemed like an editor was "chating back" instead of an encyclopedia phrase and also looked like WP:OR.

• Check that article states 92 in some places while 93 in others. Also this figure is inconsistent in other related articles. I must have seen one of the ones saying 93 and changed. If you don't assume good faith it is common sense to assume benefit of doubt. Anyway, this is some thing very lame to edit war on. You can verify and edit the article for this figure and replace all of these repetitions in the article with whichever comes to be true.

• For the inclusion of INS Vikrant, the quotes below from the article text shows that the aircraft carrier was the target (hence added in the strength section) of PNS Ghazi. This can be verified from almost all other sources. The carrier was moved away and Ghazi was lured in to the area as per Indian sources. The carrier escaped by deception.

"She started looking for the Vikrant on 23 November off Madras but was not aware that she was 10 days too late and the Vikrant was actually somewhere near the Andaman islands."

"All these activities were apparently successful in deceiving the enemy — as already mentioned. 25 November, the Pakistani command sent communication to the Ghazi saying that "intelligence indicates the finding of an aircraft carrier in port."

• I replaced Indian claims with neutral ones. It was not simple removal of citation. You are continuously misleading. If you go at this pace, you will exhaust my (and other editors') patience and might simply stop getting replies and get reported. The very first thing you should do is to read edit summaries before you ask on talk page.

• This is not a misleading summary. I had adjusted POV all over the article to neutral and was making this text consistent to that. If you can not simply understand the edit summary compare the edits. Edit summaries have a purpose; to tell what the edit was for. Don't breach WP:Civility by making accusations like 'vandalism' and 'misleading edit' without even reviewing edits.

• See #3.

• See #4. (looks like you've been copy pasting your claims to make me look like a big time wanted vandal!)

• I've seen the reliable sources noticeboard, I'm adding a tag as of now till I or some other editor find an alternate citation. Discuss on [3]

• Here you go (adding the below citation to the article too). Again, adding gets a better editor response if no citation is added. Interestingly, the Pakistani version is being confirmed by an Indian source.

Transition to triumph: history of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975 By G. M. Hiranandani

--lTopGunl (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

lets keep the discussion concentrated to the edits on the article, lets not deviate. As the article needs lot of cleaning after the [| recent edits].

1 [| the removed statement] is a a content cited from | BR which gives an explanation based on facts. no matter u like it or not. not a POV. in my opinion.

2 [|changed from 92 to 93] The article had 93 all over before u changed it to 92 to some places, without even citing them.

3 [| Inclusion ] of INS Vikrant in the sinking of Ghazi ?As I have pointed above also, INS VIKRANT was not involved in the sinking of PNS GHAZI. Just because PNS GHAZI's (last) wish was to sink VIKRANT does not mean it needs to be added. moreover by adding the word escaped to you are depicting as if VIKRANT escaped from a fight and ran away. Definately your own POV.

4 [|Removal of Citations] i disasgree with your statement that they are POV they have been proven reliable. Dont try to hide it from other editors

Besides the CItations that you have added does not support the 92 or 93 men's death. the word mysteriously was addded here just to show that you have not just removed reliable citations but also added another citation

5 [| using misleading ] edit summary to hide the removal of facts and citations. yes its clearly evident. you need to be more careful in writing edit summary and talk pages

6 [added another POV] the citation mentioned nowhere stated that INS Vikrant escaped to safety, just your POV

7 [| removal of cited content] giving citations that does not mention the mentioned texts at all see http://books.google.co.in/books?id=tsWpeumtH_8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Till,+Geoffrey&hl=en&ei=hK6dTpDUB8XrrQeGhpTJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=ghazi&f=false . this edit Still remains unanswered.

8 [| using wiki non reliable source] for adding content on a wiki article. The associated content and citations need to be removed

9 [| adding ] uncited content to prove one's POV. this edit Still remains unanswered.

its imp that we reach a conclusion or the edits would be reverted by other editors soon. --dBigXray (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• BR (even if it was a reliable source) is giving the Indian point of view from articles written by retired Indian military officers (as per the source). It definitely not a neutral source, even more, it is contradicting the neutral sources. POV is not only what you have to say (thats WP:OR), even cited content (from non neutral sources) can be POV and this is the case here clearly shown by the contradiction.

• As I said, it is very lame to fight over the figure 92-93 (which I changed for the sake of consistency with rest of the wikipedia), feel free to edit that figure.

• Yes, Vikrant was a target and it is very relevant to be added in to the strength section. All editors are free to review that. Now the question comes of 'escape'. Yes, the sources say that it escaped through deception. We are NOT expected to exactly copy the words of sources in the articles as they bring copyright issues. Every word contained in the article is written by one or other editor. Your objection to every single word of the article seems completely disruptive and will be disregarded unless some neutral editor raises a point to change the term escape into something else.

• Do you have nothing else to do? Because you just copy pasted all of what I answered right ABOVE! You need to read WP:HEAR. If you're not hearing the point, you are the one being disruptive. See for yourself, even after my explanation, you are asking/copy-pasting the exact same questions. I will not reply to any repetitive questions that I have already answered, nor will any other editor. Its very annoying & disruptive and avoids us from contributing in other places.

• No, the last part doesn't remain unanswered, I've added a valid citation to it in the article and it is now verifiable. I've relieved my self of any WP:BURDEN by adding citations and giving explanations on talk. If you disagree, you are free to review as many times as you like on your own time. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Vikrant had left the area on 13 nov i.e. 19 days before this event of sinking of Ghazi. It was in Andaman which is hundreds thousands of kilometers away from vishakhapatnam. Vikrant is relevant for the article , agree, thats why it is in the content of the article. but adding it in the infobox is misleading because it gives the reader a view point that INS Vikrant was involved in the event in some way which is completely incorrect.
• I have copied the edit references so that i can point out my replies clearly.If you will look closely you will see that the comments are different from the one on top. I expect a satisfactory explanations to the points raised by me. and nothing else. Keep the discussion focussed to the article, i am not interested in any other discussion on this talk page, so i wont reply to them. hope you will comply and not try to deviate from the real questions that i have raised point wise . I expect you to explain all the changes you have done. and their correctness --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No it does not mislead at all because it was the target of the submarine. Although it was moved some time before, but that was rather an escape because the move resulted in the game if intelligence and deception which has been mentioned in the article making it one single event. Even though your comments were changed but asking the same questions which I had already explained. I have already explained every single change I've done. If you are still not satisfied, it means you are not hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

About The[| Inclusion ] of INS Vikrant in the sinking of Ghazi ?

• So what ? It was the target of the submarine , but it was not a participant to the event of Sinking of the submarine.It is misleading because it is mentioned as participantd to the event of sinking the submarine, which is FALSE information.

'Did Vikrant caused the sinking of the ship ?' No it was not even there at the place where the sinking occured.

'Was Vikrant there at the the spot of incident?' NO it was not at Vishakhapatnam it was at andaman (Distance between Visakhapatnam to Andaman is 758.2 miles or 1220 KM (kilometers) )

' When Did Vikrant move away from Vishakhapatnam ? ' Vikrant had left the area on 13 nov i.e. 19 days before this event of sinking of Ghazi. Ghazi was working on wrong information and was busy planting mines.

' Hence Vikrant is not associated ' with the sinking of Ghazi but ' INS Rajput' is and so it must be the only ship to be placed in the military infobox. the Reference to Vikrant is already there.

[added another POV] the citation mentioned nowhere stated that INS Vikrant escaped to safety, just your POV .Writing the word Escaped to support your content is even more ridiculous. I dont think i need to advocate the need for removing VIkrant its evident that including the name is misleading others, please see similar wiki articles regarding battle ships. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

2 [| the removed statement] is a a content cited from | BR explanation based on facts.not a POV. in my opinion. should be placed for proper understanding of the incident

3 [|changed from 92 to 93] its correct to state 93 all over. Changeing to 92 without citations is incorrect and not in coherence with citations.

4 [|Removal of Citations] i disagree with your statement that they are POV they have been proven reliable. Dont try to hide it from other editors. I propose re instatement of these reliable citations that were incorrectly removed from the article .

7 [| removal of cited content] giving citations that does not mention the mentioned texts at all see http://books.google.co.in/books?id=tsWpeumtH_8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Till,+Geoffrey&hl=en&ei=hK6dTpDUB8XrrQeGhpTJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=ghazi&f=false . You have placed this at a number of places even though it does not support the text that is mentioned in the article. Check Again

8 [| using wiki non reliable source] for adding content on a wiki article. The associated content and citations need to be removed , it does not need any debate as its non reliable it needs to be removed.

9 [| adding ] uncited content Unreliable source ( www.pakdef.info )to prove one's POV. this edit is not correct should be removed. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time you've copy pasted the exact same questions inspite of my well explained, detailed and lengthy replies for your facilitation. You are not the only editor who has to be satisfied to keep certain edits (other than the fact that you are not at all following WP:HEAR). I am now considering it an act of trolling and will not respond. If you keep on flooding the talk page with your inadequate text and links, some administrator might take strict action. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• kindly dont issue personal threats of blocking, you have already tried a number of times to get me blocked and have failed in all attempts. Please concentrate on the content of the article in a talk page , I dont think there is a need to remind you of this again and again. if you feel i am doing a mistake here you are free to report me and face wp:BOOMERANG. as for the changes i request the editors to restore the article [| to version ] by Ezhiki before the Disruptive edits were done here. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedural: I'm removing the {{Request edit}} for now, because there is no clear consensus for a change; if there is later, please use another. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)