Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Dwarka

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Dwarka

"Operation Dwarka" is an insignificant incident that did not even result in the loss of life. Anon's attempt to rewrite history is flawed as in the previous article where everything is termed as "Operation" or "Battle". Next thing we could even see a firefight or shootout being glorified as war! Idleguy 06:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The stub links to an official Pakistani government website that calls this the most significant naval engagement of the war. The operation's mission was to take out radar installations, to reduce enemy air effectiveness for the ground conflict, and to lower enemy morale. These are noteworthy strategic goals. I think it's rather a good thing when a military operation can achieve its aims without killing. Naval tradition usually targets objects, not people. (I've mentioned before that I'm a war veteran. Care to guess which branch?) Durova 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1965 war article already explains this incident with proper references and in a neutral tone. It might seem on initial superficial reading like an american military operation which intends to cripple a target area with as little casualties as possible. It couldn't be further from the facts and it's regrettable that official Pakistani version uses the words "most significant". However as Tariq Ali, a Pakistani historian and many pro-Pakistani sources would explain, it barely reduced any air effectiveness in the area or dented morale. In effect it was merely sent to shell a small coastal town called Dwarka and has remained only a footnote in the entire war achieving little significance. Idleguy 07:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Things sometimes get interesting when one does a bit of sleuthing. The only Google hits for pages that mention both Tariq Ali and Operation Dwarka are Wikipedia and its mirror sites, specifically talk:Pakistan Navy and nominator Idleguy's posts. While I couldn't locate Mr. Ali's actual words on the subject it does turn out that he was a Trotskyite with no naval experience. Things look bitter on that talk page. It's been through a POV dispute and mediation. Idleguy deleted two paragraphs about the 1965 war, leaving only one sentence, for much the same reasons he advances this nomination.

Here are three independent sources I located. From an Indian account of the war, "The Dwarka shelling infuriated many Naval Officers and in ways their pride was affected for some days to come." [1] Vice Adm (Retd) Iqbal F. Quadir attributes two myths to the outcome of Operation Dwarka, both of which reflect favorably on Pakistan's naval reputation. [2] Another Indian source attests to the raid's psychological effectiveness. [3]. A cruiser, five destroyers, and a frigate is a significant force.

I'll revise some of what I said about the operation. Faulty intelligence and communications interfered with the primary mission. Yet the Indian navy failed to launch any opposition ships at all. I've lost faith in Idleguy's claims to NPOV on this matter. Durova 09:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read Tariq Ali's books and articles before coming to conclusions. Lack of naval experience is not a valid reason given that in the subcontinent officers of both nations tend to fudge facts and hype things up. A more neutral and civialian source would tell you it's otherwise. Unfortunately googling is not the only way to find out facts. The denting of "pride" for naval officers in the area that you refer to did not affect the battle plans of either nation. Infact the line is under the heading "SIDE SHOW IN THE SOUTH-WESTERN SECTOR" in the website quoted by you. Hardly worth mentioning, but if such psychological operations are to be given separate articles then we'd be filling Wikipedia with many articles of secondary importance given the magnitude of the war.

I also seldom edited articles with POV, it was just that outright claims of Operation Dwarka were being glorified as a great success when tactically / strategically it had achieved nothing of note in the course of the war that claimed thousands of lives. Hope you can read up on the war and prove me wrong. Idleguy 12:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, since the official Pakistani version uses the words "most significant" and its not our job to decide if that's true or false. Kappa 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this barely ranks as an article, but the fact is that the nominator's behaviour arouses suspicions based on the back and forth harangues at talk:Pakistan Navy. Eusebeus 13:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a stub about a noteworthy historical event. The fact that there was no loss of life involved doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not to delete it. Factitious 21:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, currently I do not have complete information and significance of the incidence. --Bhadani 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. utcursch | talk 07:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.