Talk:PNS Ghazi/Archive 1

Submarines
Indian Navy had submarines in 1971, on the East Coast there were four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.11.124 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * rectified now. tx 4 noting it down.Idleguy 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference
Please add the links for for the three relevant items. The links are our great history.We should show it to the world as reference.

Reference

1) A russian website about incidence details . For understanding, please use the google translator.

2) The wikimapia position of submarine wreckage. The coordinates were 17°41'00N, 83°21'05E according to the above russian website.

See Also

1) Victory at Sea Memorial at Visakhapatnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebird25 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Only submarine casualty off Indian subcontinent
Can this be right? Surely Japanese and Allied submarines were active in the region, not to mention the odd U-boat slipping into the Indain Ocean.

Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent Sources
The Independent Sources section contains a single reference from a biased Pakistani source. Thus could hardly be considered independent and neutral. I am removing the Independent Sources till some one adds neutral source. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have undone your edits because you have removed a valid citation from the article.--Hj108 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lame excuse for POV pushing and vandalism. You are saying you yourself have removed 3 credible sources because I removed a section of Independent Sources which was actually cited form a highly biased Pakistani site. You can add section of Independent Sources back when you actually find an Independent source and not a Pakistani site. Also stop your POV pushing and vandalism reguarding addition of new more credible sources.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also details in infobox did not contain any cited info and you actually removed the ones I added from credible sources without reason.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are the one removing a valid Pakistani source and replacing it with biased Indian sources, you are the one "POV pushing" and vandalising. You can add your Indian sources when you stop pretending they are the only "credible" sources. You also cannot tell me to stop editing.--Hj108 (talk


 * Edit Summary"Revert edits by user UplinkAnsh. Reasons: removal of Pakistani article containing independant source, replacement with biased Indian sources."


 * 1.Please note "removal of Pakistani article" has been done only in Independent Sources which should actually consist of independent sources from sites from third countries or reliable sources rather than a single Pakistani site created for the sole purpose of spreading Pakistani propoganda.

2.Also regarding "replacement with biased Indian sources", I have removed the whole section till someone comes up with a credible third party review of the incident. So I have not replaced the section with "biased Indian sources". 3.I once again invite you to come up with "credible third party review of the incident" for this section. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also one of the most important thing regarding articles on pakdef.info which you think to be most "credible", lossofghazi article and forgottenfeat article, both acknowledge that the last report received by Pakistani Naval Command from PNS Ghazi was on 26 Nov ie. a week before it's sinking. Also none of Pakistani submariners onboard PNS Ghazi ever returned to Pakistan and Pakistani Navy did not and was not able to do any investigation specially at to site of action in port of Vishakapatnam since Indian Eastern Naval Command is situated there. This definately points that the story in these articles and any other Pakistani defence sites are probably goofed up in group discussions among Pakistani Commanding Officers and top politicians to present before the public of Pakistan.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing dispute
Please note that I have cited refrences in almost each line of article from 1 Pakistani Navy site, 1 Indian defence site, 3 E-Newspapers, 2 independent authors, 1 Russian site and 1 US based site. Feel free to add more but any more constant vandalism and POV pushing without reasons would be reported.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead and report what you call "POV pushing" and "vandalism". As soon as the administrator sees that you have added "Sunk by Indian naval destroyer INS Rajput" in the infoboxwith the following sources:


 * http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22inter.htm
 * The slogan of this website: "Rediff - India as it happens" - therefore an Indian source.
 * http://www.thehindu.com/mp/2006/12/02/stories/2006120202090100.htm
 * "Online edition of India's National Newspaper" - therefore an Indian source.
 * http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
 * "Editor - Ravi Rikhye, Associate Editor - Mandeep Singh Bajwa". Origin is not stated on the website but editor names indicate Indian origin.
 * http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/in/indian_navy.htm
 * A copy of an old Wikipedia article, therefore not acceptable as a reference.
 * http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030824/spectrum/main6.htm
 * "Saturday, March 20, 2010, Chandigarh, India" - therefore an Indian source.
 * http://www.tejwebworld.com/category/military-and-defence/
 * A blog - therefore not acceptable as a reference. Not only that, content indicates it is of Indian origin.


 * UplinkAnsh, you added an Indian claim in the infobox and as references you used 3 Indian newspapers, a defence website very likely to be Indian, a blog likely to be Indian and a copy of an old Wikipedia article. Your claims of others "POV pushing" and "vandalising" are laughable.
 * --Hj108 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding refrences used in article:
 * 3 Indian newspapers: I can't find any Pakistani or third country newspaper article as this topic has garnered little interest among third countries. However I must note that even though you might think them to be highly biased, all these do qualify for reliable sources according to wiki standards. Feel free to add more newspaper articles from different nations and try to develop and integerate with existing sources rather than blanking them following wiki policy.
 * 2 US based sites: orbat.com(defence review site like globalfirepower.com,globalsecurity.org) and en.allexperts.com(read about refrences used)
 * 1 Russian site due to lack of netural sources.
 * 1 Pakistani propaganda site ie. pakdef.info (Due to lack of reliable sources)
 * 1 Indian propaganda site ie. bharat-rakshka.com (Due to lack of reliable sources)
 * 2 Books. Considered reliable sources by wiki standards
 * tejwebworld- A blog, removed. Mistake, did not look into details.


 * Now about article, please take note


 * Please note sites like pakdef.info(Pakistani), bharat-rakshka.com(Indian) and defence.pk(Pakistani) are highly biased propoganda sites qualifying for category of "Unreliable sources" according to wiki standards and policy, so should be used sparingly and even then with possible backing of netural/reliable sources.
 * Books and newspaper articles specially from prominent ones are considered reliable sources according to wiki standards and policy and should not be removed. Articles should mainly consists of such sources and even when you find another article with reliable sources with counter view, reframing the sentence should be used rather than complete blanking.
 * Refrences from netural/third country sites should not be removed specially for this article as this article hardly has any international attention. Also they should be used extensively in the article to achieve NPOV. Everyone is free to add netural refrence and help improve the article.
 * Pakistani POV pushing was very much on this article before I added refrences.
 * The whole article mainly consisted of refrences form 2 articles form 1 Pakistani propangada site which are considered unreliable wiki standards.
 * Moreover even the name of INS Rajput, the ship which sank Ghazi was not entered in the article.
 * Information about the mines being laid, having ship count mechanism, which eliminates chances of explosion due to error during mine laying was not entered.
 * Details of United States and the Soviet Union offered to raise the submarine should stay in aftermath as it was definately not a part of operation.
 * Finally PNS Ghazi was not Lost under unknown circumstances and never found. This might be true from Pakistani point of view but the truth is that PNS Ghazi was sunk and this was discovered the very next day by Indian fishermen and Navy.


 * Regarding edit summary


 * "Added reference previously added by user UplinkAnsh, in which Indian Navy commander is unsure whether India sank the Ghazi". Any guess why only this was choosen among all refrences given by me. Definately, aggressive Pakistani POV pushing. NOTE Even that was once reverted and moved to Indian version section.


 * Finally I repeat again everyone, specially Hj108 is free to add refrence and citations from crediable/netural sources and eventually reframing sentences and paragraphs in article, but removing refrences and citations, specially blanking large amount of text and refrences would not do anyone any good. Also I would invite and advice Hj108 to first solve the issue on talk page before reverting again. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not vandalism and it is inflammatory to call a good faith edit that. Sources from both viewpoints should be presented per WP:NPOV. Consider use of article WP:RFC and/or WP:30 to gain consensus; see also WP:RS Gerardw (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As per request of Hj108 I have removed refrence from en.allexperts.com and added another reliable source from an e-newspaper. Now the article contains 4 newspaper articles from 3 e-newspapers published on different dates. I would advice Hj108 not to consider whole media of a certain country as being biased. Also note


 * The newspapers I have cited from are prominent ones, TribuneIndia being a subsidary of the Tribune media group, TheHindu being ranked 50th among worlds largest newspapers and rediff being Indian equivalent of yahoo in India having huge readership of it's news segment in South and South East Asia.
 * All articles are published at different dates with approximately a difference/gap of 1 year between them, erasing the possibility of articles being published in times of conflict when patriotic sentiments are high.
 * Finally I would once again repeat that Hj108 could cite source from any Pakistani/Non Indian news source if he feels all Indian media/newspapers are biased.


 * Now regarding sites like pakdef.info, bharat-rakshka.com, Hj108 should understand that if these sites carried offical version of Pakistani and Indian side of incident respectively they should logically and necessarily be located in Pakistan and India. However the location of these sites could be tracked to United Kingdom(UK). So unless Hj108 thinks that the HQ of both Indian and Pakistani Navy is situated in London they could be nothing but propaganda site. Also, pakdef.info clearly states that Unofficial Website of Pakistan Armed Forces. Has defence related news and also a forum.

Regarding Admiral S. M. Nanda's interview, I must point out he does not doubt that if the submarine was "sunk" or "lost in unknown circumstances" but rather about the number and impact of depth charges that damaged Ghazi, since he clearly states "The blow-up was there".--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ship Count Mechnism
Both Indian and Pakistani sources acknowledge that the mines had ship count mechanism. However the Pakistani version is a hypothesis based on probable events that the Pakistani high command thought might have occured. These hypothesis are not based on any eye witness account, evidence or investigation as Pakistan did not carry out any investigation and the last contact with the submarine was a week before the actual event. Thus Pakistani version is rather for face saving purposes rather than based on facts. Indian version is rather based on the investigation carried out by Indian officials and clear states that ship count mechanism is activated only after considerable number of ships have passed over the mines, which could not have been the case in the short duration of laying 2-3 mines 150 meters apart ie. maximum of 2-3 hours.
 * Finally I would request you again to stop blanking of complete sections in the article which have been properly refrenced. If you feel there are not enough refrences from Pakistani sources you are free to add them.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit you are editing the article as though Indian claims are 100% true and Pakistani claims are not worth mentioning. This is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.--Hj108 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am saying you can add valid Pakistani sources including results of any investigations done by Pakistani Naval Command if you fond any. I have searched for reliable and official Pakistani sources for a week regarding this topic but the search was in vain. You can try to search yourself and add them to article to help improve. If you can't do that at least do not blank out cited info from other relaible sources which are non Pakistani just because you think certain things might or might not have happened. I would again repeat even pakdef.info is not a Pakistani site but rather a site based in UK and so could not regarded as an offical Pakistani Navy site carrying Pakistani version of incident. The fact is Pakistani Navy has tried to play down this incident never talked about this incident offically and their site paknavy.gov.pk does not even mention this event. I would be only too happy if you could give likes to offical Pakistani version.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So you call a website like PakDef an unreliable source because it is based in the UK, yet you fill the article with Indian sources and call them perfectly neutral. You state the Pak Navy denies this incident ever happened because they don't mention it on their website, despite the fact that the official Pak Navy website has no history section whatsoever. I guess the war never happened because the Pak Navy website doesn't mention it? Just goes to prove how pointless it is to discuss anything with you.--Hj108 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Pakistan Navy on its website has no mention is highly significant. usually when people dont want to talk about something it means they have something to hide.  the war definitely happened and Ghazi definitely sank.  in the absence of an official Pakistani explanation we have to rely more on official Indian version since Indians are the only ones that did investigate this and examined the hull.  rest all is speculation. keep in mind that Indians could have easily suppresed the info that an internal explosion happened and just said that the hull sustained a direct hit from Rajputs depth charges.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Luckily for Wikipedia, what you think doesn't matter. What you can prove with sources does matter. Got a source for the Pakistan Navy wanting to hide this incident? Do you have a single neutral and reliable source that states India's version of the story is the only true version? Or is this, like you said, just speculation i.e. original research which is banned from Wikipedia? Hj108 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)--


 * "Got a source for the Pakistan Navy wanting to hide this incident" : Do "you" have any official Pakistani source wanting to discuss and not hide this incident??? Offical silence is only maintained when governments/organisations try to hush up matters.

A UK based site for Pakistani defence services definately shows that it is not an offical site of any of the Pakistani Defence Forces unless you think that Pakistani Defence Forces are based in London. Also it is not even linked up to any news, security/defence analyst group making it a privately owned site by someone who sympathizes for Pakistani defence forces writing articles as and when he thinks. Such sites are not at all reliable as I myself could make 5 such sites in $100 boasting that Indian dinosours ate up all Pakistanis 5 million years ago. Would that be considered true???

The Indian sites I have mentioned are articles of prominent Indian newspapers, sites and Indian subsidiaries of major global news groups. Moreover I have added refrences from defence analysis sites based in US an Russia. That was the most that I could find as this topic does not interest netural nations.

Yet, I am again saying if you feel all sources in this article except pakdef.info are highly biased you are free to add more sources to back your claim.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hj108. that is exactly the point.  silence from pak navy would be interpreted by neutral people as meaning that they haven't a clue to what happened to their submarine or they know but don't want to say what they know.  as such we cannot find any info on Pakistan's official position on the matter and it looks like they did not conduct an investigation.  even Hamoodur Rahman commission did not get into this issue since their were no survivors.  Since there is no official Pakistan version of events that is available in the interest of neutrality we need to remove the Pakistani version section which is based on speculation and biased sources. if you can find a source that tells us what investigation was conducted by PN then that would be most useful Wikireader41 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I

Pakistan version
I cant find any mention in the account by Nasir Khan that his version is the official Pakistani version or supported by Pakistan Naval Command. it doesn't even appear that Mr Nasir Khan has any affiliation with Pakistan Navy or is a retd naval officer. moreover we have duplication of a single source here. citation # 10 & # 11 are the same as the website PakDef.info has merely reprinted the Dawn article from December 18, 2000. same article is being used to pad up the notability of this version against WP guidelines. see WP:DIVERSE. Now that we have info from the official Pakistan Navy website this dubious info needs to go. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the same article has been used multiple times and the reprinted version should be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been over a week since Wikireader41 proposed removal of reprinted version of single source used to pad up the notability of this version against WP:DIVERSE. If no further information is added regarding this issue in a couple of days then one of the reprinted version would be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pakdef.info
since this source is cited in the article would like to point out the mission statement of this website


 * Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
 * We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
 * PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Does not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. hardly the qualities WP requires of RS. I propose that info cited to this source be removed. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been over a week since Wikireader41 proposed that info cited to pakdef.info source be removed. I verified the reliability of the source at WP:RSN. Netural editors at this noticeboard agreed that the site was self published. If no more information or knowledge about reliability of this source is added in a couple of days then I also think the info cited to this source be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no editor has given any information regarding the reliability of pakdef.info I am removing this self-published site from source section of this article.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No neutral editors responded to my points at that noticeboard (Wikireader41 is not a neutral editor) so how can you start removing sources? Wikireader41 and yourself have also added sources that appear to be self-published, such as the British website about ships and the Orbat.com website which appears to be of Indian origin therefore not neutral either. Hence I have undone your recent edit to the article removing the pakdef.info links. If you want this and the other issues resolved properly, I suggest you help me get mediators/arbitrators involved. --Hj108 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hj108 I would recommend that you read WP:NPA and stop calling editors non neutral without any basis. people could say the same about you. self published sites are not allowed on WP as you well know.  just because something is of Indian origin does not make it non neutral.  WP extensively cites Indian origin RS's and I can also tell you several RS which are based in Pakistan ( www.dawn.com is a good example) which are considered reliable.  Pakdef.com has been discussed at RS noticeboard and thought to be self published by other editors as well.  If you have questions about other sites i suggest you take it to RS noticeboard.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hj108, I have removed the source as was proposed because the proposal regarding removal of source were put around 2 months ago and other editors including you were free to give any information regarding the reliability of pakdef.info. However you were unable to give any information regarding the reliability of pakdef.info and no other editor objected to the change. I also asked for neutral information on this topic on WP:RSN where it was accepted that the site was self-published. So now please do not simply revert the change without any new information regarding the reliability of pakdef.info and views of neutral editors. Finally you are free to invite neutral editors to review www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk to know if it is a self published and if it might have bias regarding this incident.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

J.F.R. Jacob
Recently undue importance has been given to details given by a retired Indian Army Lt. General into the naval incident involving sinking of PNS Ghazi. These findings have however not been conformed by Indian Navy or Indian Army offically. Thus I would like to discuss accuracy and reliability of this information since this refrence involves a single individual who was not present or belonged to concerned department at the time of incident.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't trust your belief that my edits give Jacob's claims undue weight, I believe that undue weight is given to the "official Indian" version in the History section. I'd like a neutral third party to look at the article first. I'm suggesting we start some kind of mediation or arbitration process to resolve this and other issues. Or you can keep editing the article according to your and Wikireader41's beliefs only, no problem, I'll get round to pulling in some neutral editors as soon as I can.--Hj108 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert changes without discussing on talk page. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now regarding undue weight given to J.F.R. Jacob I must say the details of his life “Jacob was the Indian Army's Eastern Command Chief during the 1971 war and retired from the Indian Army in 1978. He is credited with forcing the surrender of the Pakistan Army's forces in then East Pakistan, resulting in East Pakistan's secession and the formation of Bangladesh” is simply not required and only basic information is required to be given like the ones describing “Vice-Admiral (Retd) G M Hiranandani”, “Admiral Roy of India” and “Admiral S. M. Nanda, who commanded the Indian Navy during the 1971 Indo-Pak War”. By writing more information about someone than the others shows that you are trying to stress his importance to push your POV.
 * Secondly the whole details of the account by Jacob are also not required and only very basic information of his point of view is required. However if you want to make this article look like list of accounts by different people then I suggest you should start another article because then complete accounts of Vice-Admiral (Retd) G M Hiranandani, Admiral Roy, Admiral S. M. Nanda, Lt. Inder Singh, the Commanding officer of the Rajput and others on INS Rajput and at Vishakhapatnam port will also have to be added.
 * Also, you are giving undue weight J.F.R. Jacob even though he was an ‘’Army Officer’’ placed at border with Bangladesh and not a ‘’Naval Officer’’ placed at Vishakhapatnam. So neither did he belonged to the concerned department nor he was any way near the place where the incident took place, let alone being an eye-witness like Lt. Inder Singh or other sailors at Vishakhapatnam port.
 * Finally Indian Version subtopic should mostly contain version of Indian Government and Indian Navy (which would be considered as Indian Version by anyone) with minor reviews of those related to the incident and not a whole chapter ripped-off from a book of a person sitting at Kolkata, West Bengal directing those under him towards Dhaka while incident happened at Vishakhapatnam.

Misinformation regarding 1965 War
Lately the 1965 War section is being edited to introduce a misinformation saying that naval hostilities took place in the 1965 war and that PNS Ghazi sank 2 unkonwn and unnamed Indian ships. So I would like those who are persistent in introducing this misinformation to name those ships. As far as I know the only Indian ship sunk in all the Indo-Pakistani War was INS Khukri which was sunk in 1971 War. Even Pakistani Navy's Official site makis no mention of Ghazi sinking any ships. I request those still in doubt to refer to the sources in the Naval hostilities sectin of articles Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it is common knowledge that Ghazi did nothing in 65 and was sunk before doing anything in 71. I would give a lot of weight on this issue to the Pak navy site.  It is extremely unlikely they would not have mentioned sinking of 2 Indian ships in their official version.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sinking of Indian Vessel
There is a lot of controversy over this issue which i mentioned in this article. Two Indian Vessels were sunk during Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 from none of them were warships as written in the reference i mentioned. The official history of Pakistan Navy 1947-1972 and Ahmad Tasnim who was commanding officer of PNS Hangor in 1971 war noted that PNS Ghazi detected two Indian Warships on late afternoon of 22nd September 1965 and attacked them. Both of them were claimed damaged/sunk by Pakistan. One alleged sinking of Indian Navy Frigate is brought under light by a declassified document given at http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakindiawars.htm. It can be found at 1965 war section. A similar view is being given by Pakistan Defense journal. It can be read at http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/jan/agosta.htm Thank you M.A.R 1993 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say 3 things.
 * Name the ships that you think were sunk so the sinking could be cross checked by other sources. It would also help if you could give some more details of the incident and it's after effects.
 * As far as Ahmad Tasnim's claim is concerned, surely anyone could claim that he did something and surely you would find sources and news articles stating that he claimed that particular thing, but it has to be backed with other evidences as well. In this case even the names of the ships are not being provided. Claims alone cannot considered to be the truth. Moreover even Pakistan Navy claims nothing as stated earlier.
 * Finally the icdc is an Internet service provider that allows web hosting to anyone who can pay a few dollars, so the page that you are citing is self published and thus unrelliable. Defencejournal is a highly biased and most likely self published source like pakdef and bharat-rakshak and thus should be used with caution unless backed by offical or main stream media sources. Finally, Webster's Quotations though netural, is actually automatically-generated with little or no manual research and thus could carry inaccuracies like the rest of Automatically-generated books of same publication. Moreover it relies heavily on wikipedia which cannot be cited. Finally none of them carries any offical statement or is stated to be referenced from any offical source nor do they carry the name of ships sunk.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Wolf is a lawyer in DC and his page does not constitute a WP:RS. even reading the telegram in there about possible loss it clearly states that even Pak navy was totally confused if such an event occurred.  when we have access to the official pak navy history ( which has no mention of such a thing happening) what credibility do either of these sources have ??  this is again a WP:FRINGE theory which has no place on WP--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry i couldn't answered for a long time. I like to remove your reservations. First of all the names of ships which were sunk by Ghazi. One was INS Beas which is written in a book named "GHAZI" pg 300 written by a Pakistani Naval officer. I am sorry i couldn't find that book at Google because it is Urdu. Other ship name was INS Brahmaputra or INS Ranjit whose name is written in the same book. As far as date and time is concerned, i have mentioned it earlier. You can study the detail of its in Story of the Pakistan Navy 1947-1972 page 223-224. You can fine it at Google books and is an official version. However, it gives the sinking of only one i.e INS Beas. Secondly, Ahmad Tasnim could definitely claim that thing because he was with Commanding officer K.R. Niazi on Ghazi during 1965 War. So he knows more than us. Finally, i gave that site of telegrams for the sake of better understanding that such incident happened and supports it to some extent. Because smoke arises from the place where fire had burnt at sometime. If you could like to consider a reliable source than should consider Ahmad Tasnim's claim and Story of Pakistan Navy book.If you wanted i could provide the details of it because there is no use of frantically writing words. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know INS Beas and INS Brahmaputra were placed on Eastern Naval Front headed by Captain L. Ram Das and Captain J.C. Puri respectively along with INS Vikrant in the 1971 war. INS Ranjit formed the second detachment in Operation Python along with INS Mysore and INS Betwa which was tasked with shelling the port of Gwadar off the Makran Coast during 1971 war. The second detachment eventually also managed to capture Pakistani merchant ship Madhumati with it's cargo of more than rupees Two Crore worth of material in form of rice and cotton, apart from achieving it's primary objective. Clearly the ships you mentioned were not sunk and were very much active during 1971.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was definitely expecting this answer. First of all the book name i mentioned above states that Beas was sunk/damaged during the conflict and its news was hid by authorities due to certain diplomatic and internal challenges; whose little idea came from that declassified telegram. In the second book, Story of Pakistan Navy 1947-1972 states that Indian Navy possessed 19 Frigates/Destroyers at the outbreak of war and only 16 were paraded after. A clash with Brahmaputra of Ghazi is given in "Story of Pakistan Navy" and "War of Twins". If you could read out these books then something could drag out. A reference which is a matter of this conflict is also portentous. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you have not been able to provide a single link to the book on any of the search engines of book or it's isbn number. Secondly I do not have to read a book saying "Ahmad Tasnim claimed that he probably sunk 2 ships which could be any 2 from INS Beas, INS Ranjit or INS Brahmaputra. However Indian authorities hid this fact due to certain diplomatic and internal challenges and conspire with US, Russia, UK, ... and other major world powers along with world media to fulfill their dirty aim of not letting Ahmad Tasnim get a medal.", when I clearly know that the world knows about what exactly happened to these ships.
 * The name Beas brings back memories of its earlier incarnation which saw over 32 years of glorious service in Indian Navy from May 1960 to December 1992. INS Beas
 * The first Brahmaputra was a modified Leopard class (British) frigate. Ordered in 1955, she was commissioned on March 28, 1958 to become the first major warship to be built in Great Britain for the Indian Navy, after independence. She rendered yeoman service to the nation for 29 years. She was decommissioned on June 30, 1986. INS Brahmaputra
 * 'Madhumati', a Pakistani cargo vessel, which had been renamed 'Adamant Manila' to hoodwink the Indian Navy, was seized by units of the Western Naval Command, brought to Bombay and anchored in Victoria Docks on December 14,Madhumati--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is amazing that we are expected to believe what some Pakistani officer has written in an Urdu language book which cant be found. Did he also write that 1965 and 1971 wars were decisive victories for Pakistan and its glorious army ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your tone is getting anti-neutral and one-sided. First give me the name of that reference of "OFFICIAL HISTORY OF PAKISTAN NAVY" which said no naval action took place. I myself have studied this official version which could not be viewed by Wikipedia for copyright reasons. If a reference is provided regarding sinking of vessels it is declared misinformation. If reference regarding Indian Navy confining itself to harbors due to the fear of Ghazi is considered travesty. Truth makes it way to the commonplace. Read this and say that Indian Navy is very kind and affectionate; invincible too : http://books.google.com.pk/books?ei=Hg6iTNGTPIOAvgP8v5XsAw&ct=result&id=nM6OAAAAMAAJ&dq=Pns+Ghazi+Nuclear+Proliferation&q=Pns+Ghazi+#search_anchor M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This time I completely don't get what you are trying to say. I suggest you try to speak in points when talking about multiple things as I do generally. Form what I get you took my imaginary specimen statement seriously and did not concentrate on the references I gave. Moreover you again failed to come up with a reliable reference to back up your side of discussion. The reference you gave does not mention that Ghazi sunk any of the ships. You should understand I have already provided reliable references stating that the ships in question were decommissioned decades after the war, so clearly they had not been sunk.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * M.A.R 1993 you are the one who is pushing POV here. If you had cared to read the article you would have come across this reference which has no such mention of Ghazi sinking anything ever  Now I hope you don't say that this is not from the official Pak Navy site.  Go get them to correct the version of history before you try to push silly fringe theories here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also trying to give some IMAGINARY SPECIMEN trying to show small piece of naval action did take place and it was Indian Navy who not due to piousness rather due to fear avoided the war. As far as Pakistan Navy's s site is concerned it only mentions important points relating to it and not the full detail. When i gave the name of book someone in this world got angry. there is no POV pushing i am trying indeed i didn't know the full meaning of it. I tried to give the name of these ships. If these were not these ships there is no worry because Ghazi did some action and reference i provided is enough to support them. These might be some other ships because Indian Navy was operating many ships on that time. Let me help. Indian Navy claimed of sinking 7 Pakistani small gunboats during 1971 War in the East Pakistan. Indian Navy gave the name of only three. Then other 4 are disputed?? Similarly there are many other examples in naval history. In WW2 (example only) US Navy lost 40 destroyers and only the name of 2 0r 3 is given. Then other 37 are disputed?? Therefore, mentioning the name is not important as date, time and venue of the conflict is which i have provided you. There should be no purpose of distracting others since we are here for knowledge. It can be considered an allegation but not a lie. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully, I said that I do not have to read imaginary statement because it has no value on wikipedia, and instead gave reference but all you are doing is providing theories and IMAGINARY SPECIMEN with no proofs. Now you are saying you think the ships you mentioned did not take part in action and there were other ships whose names are unavailable. From all you have said it only seems Ahmad Tasnim used to hallucinate some kind of naval action and then claim sinking ships in Urdu books that cannot be found. I can't help but say that from now on I will not continue to participate in this discussion about a WP:FRINGE theory which has no place on WP unless you provide proofs.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not provided any IMAGINARY SPECIMEN but a fact which is being tried to be converted into a theory. I have provided a neutral reference which is internationally acclaimed. As far as name of the ships is regarded i tried to provide some references which is not considered by writers of this article. I don't think it is compulsory to name those ships since logic for that has been given above. That there are many naval casualties which did take place but there detail is unknown. Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seriously think that Pak Navy website would overlook the sinking of 2 Indian warships by it Flagship submarine ??? If it had actually happened it would be all over the media and Pakistan would have declared a "Ghazi day" as it would have been the first sinking in Indian waters of a ship by a submarine since WW2, not to mention all kinds of medals being awarded to the gallant crew. even if their is one Pakistani author who believes something like that occurred I am sure there are some who believe that Pakistan defeated India in 1965 and I971.  would you want to mention that also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason of celebrating "GHAZI DAY" as 8th September 1965 is celebrated as Victory Day for Pakistan Navy in the defense of the country in 1965 War. And on media this issue had been discussed several times and PN received appreciation till day. Media also refers it as INS Beas and the avowed story described above. Thank youM.A.R 1993 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us try a new angle. Why do Pakistani Navy and government officials boast that INS Khukri sunk in 1971 was the first warship sunk in action by a submarine since World War II if what you are saying is correct??? Also let me give you another reliable source stating "The (Indian) navy, which had not participated in any war that India had fought till 1971"rediff. Clearly it seems everyone except you knows that Indian Navy did not participate in 1965 War. Moreover I have already given you a neutral reliable reference stating INS Beas was in service with Indian Navy till December 1992.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes look at this, looks like Ghazi alleged sinking of 2 Indian ships is only remembered by 1 person who writes in Urdu. This another detailed account published by Naval Postgraduate School and written by a Pak Navy officer similarly has no mention of Indian battleships being sunk in 1965 . so keep your POV to yourself and stop pushing Fringe theories here.  otherwise be prepared to be blocked. consider this your only warning.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Now be cool and read this reference which is in English and available published by University of Michigan in 2006. Indeed this book was written in 1966 immediately after the War and contained Original War dispatches of Pakistan during these 17 days war. http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=m7AJk5Bza3UC&q=Seventeen+September+Days+by+M.+Aziz+Beg&dq=Seventeen+September+Days+by+M.+Aziz+Beg&hl=en&ei=M4qsTI3lMISivgOVt8HOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA This also indicated that Indian Navy lost one Frigate worthily six crore rupees and one merchant vessel. three Mercahnt Vessel were captured as well. This is more better than globalsecurity containing fragmented articles plus rediff. When this is explained then there is no need to publish and write it on every wall of Pakistan Navy staff college and websites because there is a method of everything. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you get it that having one reference say it when vast majority say that nothing like this ever happened. Plese read WP:FRINGE carefully .  even if a reference exists no need to include this.  This is precisely what POV pushing is.  If you want I can also find you a reference that Pakistan army is the best in the world and won all battles it fought.  do you think we should use that refernce too ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

M.A.R 1993, you did not answer my question Why do Pakistani Navy and government officials boast that INS Khukri, sunk in 1971, was the first warship sunk in action by a submarine since World War II if what you are saying is correct???. In the references given by Wikireader41 Pakistani Navy officials and mainstream media accept that INS Khukri was the first and only ship that was ever sunk by Pakistani Navy and was eventually overrun in 1971. Now why do you think would Pakistani media say that if it was not true??? Also do read WP:FRINGE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven;t give only one reference : Books name are : 1. Seventeen September Days, 2. Story of Pakistan Navy 1947-1972, 3. Ghazi (In Urdu), 4. Webster's Reqoutations and phrases. Well a declassified document that had been presented earlier in the discussion at http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakindiawars.htm. Confusion is not regarding the ship sank but which one is missing so the claim should be verified. That letter also holds that "The sinking of Indian Ship by American Supplied Submarine would be likely". Letter is of US State Department which is not an unreliable source. Secondly, the discussion of Pakistan Army is not justified because this another topic. Now, Why Pakistan Navy boasted the sinking of Khurki? First Pakistan Navy didn't said that only INS Khurki is the ship causality ever inflicted upon India by Pakistan. Sinking of Khurki was a morale booster for Pakistan in 1971 war by Hangor. That is why it was undauntedly celebrated. Same was the case with Ghazi in 1965 War. It was decorated for sinking of Beas according to Pakistan and Brhamaputra according to India in a ridicule manner. As far as it is avowed earlier that it is not required to write it everywhere because there are many books on Pakistan Navy in which sinking of Khurki is also not mentioned. Now, first ask a Pakistan Navy member about Ghazi and then witness a Defense Day Ceremony on Internet about 6th September 1965. You will not say it again. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of them are verifiable . likely sinking is not the same as sinking.  many pakistni books about Pak navy which do not mention Khukri ??? .  This is still very much a WP:FRINGE theory. no place here on WP.  Pakistani Navy officer has written a detailed account without mentioning Ghazi sinking anything.  I have talked to many Indian Navy officers who have said that when Ghazi wreckage was found all the sailors had defaecated ( uncontrolled diarrhea) in their pants because they were so scared.  should we add that also to the article??  the standing joke in Indian army is pakistan lost 1971 war because Pakistani soldiers were not provided diapers and had to keep running to the bathroom every time under attack from Indian forces.  while very common belief in India this kind of hearsay has no place on WP--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

M.A.R 1993 you don't get the point. The question is if Pakistani media, Navy and government boast that "INS Khukri was the first warship sunk by a submarine since World War II" then they clearly accept that none of their submarines sunk any ships till 1971. So no ships were sunk by any Pakistani submarine including Ghazi in the 1965 war. The telegram only contains a random conversation with Pakistani Attache followed by comments saying that the Attache was confused and if a ship was actually sunk then cover up has been excellent but a proof if found would hit headlines. Pakistani headlines instead say that INS Khukri was the first warship sunk by a submarine since World War II. So stop pushing your WP:FRINGE theory.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many books on Pakistan Navy which you don't have read. The links to these books have been mentioned earlier in the discussion. This says that Pakistan Navy always mentioned and continue to mention Ghazi in their history. And the second sweeping statements you have mentioned shoes you volt mind which is filled with garbage, Mr. Wkikreader. UplinkAnsh first you said First Frigate sank and second First Warship sank. You are confused i think so. Ship was sunk and only its name was to be found which was hid away according to the telegram. This is another link, found some defects and state it below. http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/438/pn_warships_part4A_submarines.htm Now, i have since provided you at most 7 references and their sources in above discussion. So clear your mind from garbage and i'll provide them again. Also throw a sincere eye on my suggestion given above. Read old news archives of the DAWN, Pakistan Times, Radio Pakistan, Pakistan Television Network, Jhang, Niwai-e-Waqat and many others that what Pakistanis told about these incidents. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The garbage exists only in your mind and you seem hell bent on accepting a fringe theory which even Pakistan navy does not believe in. what the fuck is "shoes you volt mind" and it is very clear you have little knowledge of English language also, like your knowledge of Ghazi's activities and perhaps you should stay away from English wikipedia.  None of the references you have provided says anything about Ghazi sinking anything in 1965 anbd you are just providing unverifiable references to book written in Urdu.  for example  says Ghazi sank nothing in 1965.  I can also say that their are 100s of Indian books that you haven't read (or cannot read because they are in English) which say that Ghazi was completely impotent/ineffective in both 1965 and 1971.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Chill down. Take a break. This discussion is turning ugly with all the name callings and all. Let's just discuss the merit of the sources. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you are the one who is totally confused. I never used the word frigate and has been using the word ship/warship in all my comments. Do Ctrl+F to be sure. However to clear your confusion let me tell you warships are ships built to fight war and frigates are one of the many type of warship. For details read Warship.
 * Firstly you provided 4 references and none of your references are reliable except the 1)US telegram which says it would be close to perfect(ie. impossible) cover up if any ship was ever sunk and does not say if any ship was ever sunk. It also adds that if sinking theory was true it would soon hit headlines but the theory never managed to get a single line in even Pakistani newspapers or Navy reports. 2)Webster's Quotations and 3)defencejournal.com are unreliable as already discussed in 3rd point of my first comment.
 * 4)The author of the book Seventeen September Days, Mr M. Aziz Beg seems to be writing books on everything from War to politics, religion and history but it seems he is neither a defense analyst, politician, religious leader or historian. Moreover the publisher of the book does not have a site and cannot be traced on net to check his reliability. Also it seems the publisher only writes books by Aziz Beg. Please given some information regarding the reliability of the author and publisher otherwise it may be safe to assume that Aziz Beg does desktop publishing of the books he writes, thus making it self published and unreliable.
 * It is immature of you to ask someone to read all the books in Pakistan. Even you would not read them all. Moreover wikipedia does not work by "many books on Pakistan Navy which you don't have read" or "witness a Defense Day Ceremony on Internet about 6th September 1965", read List of policies.
 * "shoes you volt mind" does not mean anything in English language.
 * Finally you still have not answered my question, Why do Pakistani Navy and government officials boast that INS Khukri in particular, was the first warship sunk in action by a submarine since World War II if what you are saying is correct???--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that garbage had been put aside because some began to give their personnel fairy tales about historical topics since history is totally a different and a methodical science invented by subtle minded peoples like Muslims and Greeks. First of all "Shoes your volt face" is "Shows your Volt face" since you could not identify a simple mistake and began to write and as "anbd" in escatsy. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is very easy to remove the words while editing and be present them for rechecking by using Ctrl+F. I Know what warships are so thank you for your affectionate and wheeled effort for increasing my knowledge.
 * Th reference of US state department has been understood by you and it explains the topic somewhat. The reference of Webster's re quotation is neutral. As far as defence journal is concerned its references have been used time and again on different sites at Wikipedia. Since the references used up by wikipedia themselves used Bharatrakshak and defencejournal as references. So why hesitates in considering these sources directly.
 * Seventeen September Days is the book written in 1966 and later digitized in America. You can read the book review and other things at Google books. As i said earlier that these books contain official war dispatches of Pakistan and world tribute to the latter.
 * When i said about watching defence day ceremony it was to remove your misunderstandings about the version of Pakistan Navy and media about Ghazi. Since one posses some commonsense is a condition.
 * I recently gave another reference in my last argument which is from yours article's external sources list. http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/438/pn_warships_part4A_submarines.htm Now if this a unreliable than what it is doing on the article. Respect your own prospect. This shows that Ghazi scored hits on an Indian Frigate.
 * Now your question my friend. Why do Pakistani Navy and government officials boast that INS Khukri in particular, was the first warship sunk in action by a submarine since World War II if what you are saying is correct??? I ve answered it earlier that it was used as a morale booster for Pakistan Navy after receiving defeats in the earlier war similarly as Victory at Chamb was used again and again. Ghazi's claim was disputed by India which caused much of the trouble. More like that India claimed that Battle of Assal Uttar was the largest tank battle since ww2. And again claimed that Tank battle at Shakargarh in 1971 was the largest tank battle since ww2. If we consider the tank casualty then Assal Uttar superseded Former. Same is the difference between hits by Ghazi and hits by Hangor. Are you satisfied now? or not you can ask this question again.

I am truly fed up trying make you understand about a useless topic which no one believes in except you. You have again come up with a "morale booster" theory with no reference and one that cannot be understood by any one but you. According to neutral editors and administrators at RSN you need to state 4-5 highly reliable sources(news articles of prominent newspapers, government records) which specifically say Ghazi sank 2 ships along with the name of ships according to WP:REDFLAG. Among your sources I repeat US telegram and orbat.com does not speciafically say if Ghazi sank anything or not and so are useless. You have not provided information about the author and publisher of the book Seventeen September Days and so nothing can be said about it's reliability. Webster's Quotations is just an automated Wikipedia ripoff and should never be cited. defencejournal is highly biased source which is not a highly reliable and needs to be backed up. Trouble me next time when you have 4-5 reliable sources.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can consider it a useless topic, it is your consent and I don't bother impede in it. First you asked a question several times so i answered it. It was your personal question which afforded a personal answer. Second the detail of Seventeen September Days is:  http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=m7AJk5Bza3UC&q=Seventeen+September+Days+by+M.Aziz+Beg&dq=Seventeen+September+Days+by+M.Aziz+Beg&hl=en&ei=6Yu5TIqjEIewvgOikIzvDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA. The sources at orbat.com signifies that Ghazi did some action and fired four torpedoes at an AA Frigate. So, it is the reference already mentioned in the article. You should think about it, isn't a travesty with this topic. Seventeen September Days already said contains official war dispatches of Pakistan. US State department describes the same story.M.A.R 1993 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MAR, this is actually going too far. Even your so called references do not say anything about Ghazi sinking anything. If you can't put forward a coherent reasoning, its better that you shut up. Shovon (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

4 reialble refrences had been demanded. so, I list them up for your convinence : These refrences clearly rejects the line: "Though it didn't score any hits" M.A.R 1993 (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seventeen September Days by M.Aziz Beg Link is at: http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=m7AJk5Bza3UC&q=seventeen+september+days+by+aziz+beg&dq=seventeen+september+days+by+aziz+beg&hl=en&ei=ZCvFTPavDYSkuAPD7uCWCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA
 * The declassified US State department letter regarding sinking of Indian Frigate at: http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakindiawars.htm.
 * Story of Pakistan Navy 1947-1972 by Naval Headquarters, Islamabad Pakistan. The book is not available at google books so you can study its 1965 war part at :http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1965war.html
 * Te orbat article of PNS Ghazi :http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/438/pn_warships_part4A_submarines.htm

You have not provided information about the author and publisher of the book Seventeen September Days and continue to provide link to the book. This does not make it reliable. Also multiple editors have agreed that telegram and orbat article do not say anything about Ghazi sinking anything. pakdef is highly biased and should be backed up by reliable sources. It's mission statements clealy states its members have been writing and discussing facts concerning Pakistan not commonly available elsewhere and that it's administrators feel mainstream media and publications from respected policy analysts mischaracterize Pakistan. It is anything but neutral and shuns mainstream media. Moreover WP:REDFLAG requires highly reliable sources like mainstream articles in prominent news groups, official records, books by well known personalities, articles in popular websites. You have provided none so far.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first thing is that pakdef.info contains the part of the book which is basically in Story of Pakistan Navy 1947-1972. I have said it earlier. This has nothing to do with pakdef.info because it is a part of that book published by naval headquarters. Since this book is not available at google books. I ve said that you want to reject Declassified document, Seventeen september days good. But at least respect your own source which says that Ghazi did score some hits. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop your Tendentious editing.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. since you are doing the same job. I don't thik so that i am doing some Tendentious editing since you don't have the patience and rational kowledge of history. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the article lead section

 * Hassan, I'll take over the copyediting and rewriting of the lead section as well the infoboxes, bloody confusing mess as I see it. The section(s) pertaining to the sinking of the ship will be your responsibility, I'll help out with whatever correction that is needed and you'll help me with the lead section later. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was about to make edits to infobox, moving on to sinking section now. I think the belligerents section in infobox should be maintained in the cleaned up version as it gives a quick insight. I've seen such inclusion in some other ships' articles that were sunk in action. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've completed editing. You can go on with editing your part. Heads-up, the references are a mess and are repeatedly linked instead of being named so reserving them (while removing or adjusting content) will be a hassle. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead rewritten with minimal redundancy and as per sources from all POVs. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Seems pretty much expanded and well sourced. Suggest to nominate --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)