Talk:Operation Python

Article
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)


 * Welcome. This is a Wiki. That means you can edit the article and provide some balence. Feel free to try anytime. DJ Clayworth 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The content of the article are cited, The event has not been publicised much in the pakistani literature as it portrayed the success of Indian Navy and the damage of Karachi harbour. Neverthless the Pakistani version of events can also be added if they are reliably sourced and cited. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag of convenience
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)

DISPUTED TAG and Multiple edits, removal of content from the article
by the [| multiple edits] the userHassanhn5 (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 -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)-- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

reverted okha
reverted the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676085 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Python&diff=next&oldid=455676512

-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PNS strength

 * I've made minor adjustments as per previous discussion results and reviewed a wrong cited phrase. Check out. I think the armed Pakistani ships like shahjahan, muhafiz and khaiber should be added to strength section. Add if you agree. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * you can add the strength section(but make sure its reliably cited.) Also there is a possibility that in future an editor might raise a question that these were the destroyed ships of PN, and a harbour generally has more ships, so the Strength of the Karachi harbour during Operation Python could be larger. unless its clearly cited that they were the only ships on harbour that time. what do you say? On the other hand, the participant vessels of the Indian navy in the event has been widely cited, hence it correctly placed for Indian side in infobox.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there were no ships destroyed at harbour (if there were any at all at port) because there are no citations for that. In such case the arguing editor will have to bring citations. Adding the strength of the armed ships on both sides with their names is completely normal. Infact the rescue ships should be added too. Same goes for the operation trident (infact the fighter aircraft that did the friendly fire is also supposed to be in the strength since it was participating). Also, the destroyed ships would already go in the loses section so no editor will object. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont support adding the rescue ships to the strength they came later on to take survivors and were not a part of operation Python. though it can be mentioned in the aftermath section. about the Trident friendly fire, it happened on the next day, after Trident was already done and Indian ships returning back. The operation Trident was already concluded when the friendly fire was done. its wrong and unwise to add the things that should only be a part of the aftermath section to the infobox. The infobox deals specifically to the event and its actual participants.
 * about the PNS ships in operation Python,i could only find mention of PNS Munsif, PNS Dacca as they were in Manora anchorage. The indian offensive was on ships at Manora anchorage as well as on Karachi harbour. with missiles destroying the Kemari oilfarm in Karachi. The PNS Ships at karachi harbour mistook the missile attacks at night to be an air raid and started shelling. there were many PNS gunboats at karachi harbour . its mentioned that PNS himalaya firing of starshells to look for a possible aircraft. there was constant firing from PNS vessels at karachi harbour. just because no vessels at karachi harbour were destroyed does not necessarily mean they did not participate in the fight. PNS himalaya is one such example. at best  the strength og the PNS can be mentioned as PNS Dacca, PNS, Munsif, PNS himalaya and unknown number of ships at karachi harbour. this info can be placed,this looks quite reasonable, what do you say ? -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then ships that were there should be added in the strength section, but those that were in harbour should be marked in bracket to clarify. Yes, addition of rescue ships has some issue, but they played a significant roll. If there are any other articles adding SAR vessels, then they should be added other wise not. About operation trident, I think the Pakistani side still thought there were more coming, so it is considered to be a part of it. If not agreed, a separate discussion can be started on operation trident talk page if needed. Not related to this discussion, but reflists are normally not added to talk pages. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The question we need to ask is did they participate in Operation Python, if yes they can be added along with citations for the same, in the infobox. the word Unknown number of ships at karachi harbour also implicitly covers them. if they participated only in rescue of survivors i guess its fine to mention their name in Aftermath section, neverthless the Unknown number of ships at karachi harbour covers all of them. (reflist was added as i was getting an error from my browser due to a ref tag in the citation of mmy comment. have fixed it .) -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All those ships that were out in the sea should be named and the unknown tag should be added on top. Please note that muhafiz in operation trident went to actually assist and rescue khaiber and got attacked. If any such cases were there in python, i.e. if any ships went into rescue missions during the operation, they should be added to strength. Review citation for that. Rest is fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * firstly i dont think we have a reliable citation stating muhafiz in operation trident went to actually assist and rescue khaiber and got attacked. secondly muhafiz was attacked during operation Trident hence its correctly there. I hope we are wise enough to distinguish between an event and its aftermath. dont confuse between them. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the story on Pakdef. It went to assist I think. Anyway, this one's for operation python and not trident. If any ships were engaging during this operation, they should be mentioned in strength. Esp. the ones that got sunk. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yes If any ships were engaging during the operation, they can very well be added in infobox. just make sure that the engagements in the aftermath is different from engagements in the the operation . the events in the aftermath are best described in the article with the infobox solely reserved for the event that the infobox is about. and the content well cited of course.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is understood. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact of attack
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830105254/http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php to http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2019
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)
 * SP's can be very inconsistent in the quality of their articles and I usually avoid it as much as possible, but in this case the removal may be unwarranted. When one account of the operation by Commander Neil Gadihoke published in Transition to Triumph is considered to be reliable, it'd be unreasonable to say that another account of his published by SP's is unreliable. —Gazoth (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not a binary option and it often depends upon the exact stuff that you're citing via it. So, in light of that:-
 * Russia Beyond is considered as a Kremlin-dictated propaganda/PR tool 'to varying extents. That India and Russia share close ties; I doubt that an article authored by an Indian writer it's own military will not be quite favored upon. At any case, I am very skeptical about claiming the stuff about enemy-damage, from any one of any belligerency, that had a skin in it.
 * As to SP's naval forces; I can recall at-least 15-20 times (and I am hardly an avid reader), when they wrote grossly inaccurate stuff but failed to retract. They do publish good stuff but are highly inconsistent. Further, given the frequency of their publications, their citation count across reliable peer reviewed journals or books is quite underwhelming.
 * To me, a good article about MILHIST in these areas must not source anything concerning enemy-damage (immediate military damage; economic damage in long run; strategic damage; whatever) or misc. enemy affairs to sources, written by the army staff of the other side, in the voice of Wikipedia . I will go as far as to ask that such objective assessments may not be sourced from any Indian author; at all. 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 veteran is ; Pakistan lost x boats, y tankers, z personnel. All it's fleet were subsequently teleported to Pacific. ref:-ABC, Indian army veteran is . 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.
 * Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 18:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Though most of your points make sense to me, I see this as a common practice in articles about battles, conflicts, and wars, in some GAs/FA as well. Keeping in view of WP:OSE, I shouldn't be saying that. But how do you deal with that when there is a lack of availability of sources. I'd love to have a discussion about this on a broader platform, at WT:MILHIST, and include this in the concerned NPOV and MOS policies, if not already present. It'll then sound like a true Wikipedia voice. KCVelaga (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * --I think this to be a part of common sense and am skeptical about integration with our content policies; too specific. Let's ask some other experienced editor in these areas----Do you agree with my above write-up and the broader theme? &#x222F; WBG converse 06:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also KCVelaga (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, claims by involved parties need to be attributed. That is Wikipedia 101. If the people making the claims are internationally recognised scholars, we might have a debate about whether they are "involved" or not. But, otherwise, the basics trump the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tagging me. A lot of this depends on context. I agree that common sense & logic should be the basis for judging whether a source is WP:RS. If there is a specific fact in dispute I'd be happy to comment. Best of all to avoid not so good sources unless it is a great imperative. AshLin (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)