This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Python article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Python has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems very one sided article, bragging from Indian perspective. Can someone write a proper analysis?!
I completely agree with above. Sources mentioned are one-sided too. Mainly indian. Neutrilty is very biased please backup the facts with high quality sources or consider rewriting the article with mentioning of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.6.65 ( talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, there are few or no non-Indian sources on operation trident and Operation Python. The Pakistanis liked to pretend it never happened, and did so quite successfully as they were under military dictatorship at the time. There were no other accounts of the operations, other than that Pakistan struck the destroyed ships from its naval register. Nomadfromhell ( talk) 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Panama is a common location for Flags of Convenience and possibly also a minor maritime nation (due to limited population). Was the tanker really Panamanian or was that just its flag?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 08:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
by the [ | multiple edits] the user Hassanhn5 ( talk) has removed some content and the removal has not been explained on the talk page. some of these have been wrongly removed. from the article, . I expect cited explanations for the removal of content or else i propose the restoration of the article before these edits -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
reverted the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455678644 the bombing at okha occured on 5 December, 1971 (ref name=paf cite web | title=pak gov website | url= http://www.paf.gov.pk/courage.html ) before the operation Python not after Python as it was wrongly portrayed in the article .
added citations for these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676085 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676512
-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Operation Python was essentially the destruction of much of one ports oil tanks. To say that the attack meant that "India had established complete control over the oil route from the Persian Gulf to Pakistani ports" seems somewhat far fetched. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since I did the Operation Trident review, I will take this one as well. Comments to come over the following days. Zawed ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I did some minor copyediting to the prose, please review these to make sure I haven't altered any meanings. Some of the copy editing changes to the Operation Trident article should have been replicated here as it would have made my review more efficient. I strongly recommend you have a look at your other articles that are still awaiting a GAR to see if feedback on already reviewed articles could be applied. In the meantime, issues I noted with this article:
That's all for now. Cheers. Zawed ( talk) 01:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for your recent edits on this article, and notifying me about the same. I did some work on the article, please take a look. Regarding the previous, I understand ScoopWhoop may not meet RS for historical information. But I would like understand your line of reasoning for Russia Beyond and SP's Naval Forces, especially the latter one. I ask so because these are generally considered reliable for general information, I mean they may not stand with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, considering this article to be having exceptional claims at several points. Also I may be missing some crucial points, which you might have identified regarding the reliability of these sources. KCVelaga ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
ABC writes that Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel and Pakistan asked all it's fleet to teleport to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteranis okay;
Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel. All it's fleet were subsequently teleported to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteranis not okay. If you do find Pakistani sources or some reputed foreign academic which/who concur about the dealt damage or their own decisions; it's fine to make the statement objectively.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Python article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Python has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems very one sided article, bragging from Indian perspective. Can someone write a proper analysis?!
I completely agree with above. Sources mentioned are one-sided too. Mainly indian. Neutrilty is very biased please backup the facts with high quality sources or consider rewriting the article with mentioning of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.6.65 ( talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, there are few or no non-Indian sources on operation trident and Operation Python. The Pakistanis liked to pretend it never happened, and did so quite successfully as they were under military dictatorship at the time. There were no other accounts of the operations, other than that Pakistan struck the destroyed ships from its naval register. Nomadfromhell ( talk) 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Panama is a common location for Flags of Convenience and possibly also a minor maritime nation (due to limited population). Was the tanker really Panamanian or was that just its flag?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 08:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
by the [ | multiple edits] the user Hassanhn5 ( talk) has removed some content and the removal has not been explained on the talk page. some of these have been wrongly removed. from the article, . I expect cited explanations for the removal of content or else i propose the restoration of the article before these edits -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
reverted the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455678644 the bombing at okha occured on 5 December, 1971 (ref name=paf cite web | title=pak gov website | url= http://www.paf.gov.pk/courage.html ) before the operation Python not after Python as it was wrongly portrayed in the article .
added citations for these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676085 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676512
-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Operation Python was essentially the destruction of much of one ports oil tanks. To say that the attack meant that "India had established complete control over the oil route from the Persian Gulf to Pakistani ports" seems somewhat far fetched. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since I did the Operation Trident review, I will take this one as well. Comments to come over the following days. Zawed ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I did some minor copyediting to the prose, please review these to make sure I haven't altered any meanings. Some of the copy editing changes to the Operation Trident article should have been replicated here as it would have made my review more efficient. I strongly recommend you have a look at your other articles that are still awaiting a GAR to see if feedback on already reviewed articles could be applied. In the meantime, issues I noted with this article:
That's all for now. Cheers. Zawed ( talk) 01:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for your recent edits on this article, and notifying me about the same. I did some work on the article, please take a look. Regarding the previous, I understand ScoopWhoop may not meet RS for historical information. But I would like understand your line of reasoning for Russia Beyond and SP's Naval Forces, especially the latter one. I ask so because these are generally considered reliable for general information, I mean they may not stand with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, considering this article to be having exceptional claims at several points. Also I may be missing some crucial points, which you might have identified regarding the reliability of these sources. KCVelaga ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
ABC writes that Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel and Pakistan asked all it's fleet to teleport to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteranis okay;
Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel. All it's fleet were subsequently teleported to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteranis not okay. If you do find Pakistani sources or some reputed foreign academic which/who concur about the dealt damage or their own decisions; it's fine to make the statement objectively.