text:
Talk:Pakistan Navy

POV
I think 203.99.49.41 is trying to resort to POV statements of his own. With many authors and various official statements including Pakistan and Indian counts specifying that the losses of both - which is included in the article, one would presume there would be no room for doubt. However 203.99.49.41 is trying to delete references to the war and trying to alter history in the process by writing very opinionated views. I have said it was "overrun" which signifies that the pakistan navy was overpowered both by numbers and significant hits. Instead the said user tries to use 2 sentences to explain the same and with lots of spelling errors and factual inaccuracies with poor incomplete english. I suggest that this user read information from every point, official as well as neutral on this war to understand that pakistan navy truly lost spectacularly and that I was trying to be as neutral as possible in covering the defeat. The truth might be hard to swallow, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.--Idleguy 12:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Idleguy is using his point of view rather than any historical lit. The Indian Navy's loss were not "negligable" they lost three ships to Pakistans one. The "Half" of a fleet idleguy loves to refer to means the gunboats basically converted fishing trawlers) which the Indians sank in the East. In the West, only the PNS Kyhber was a loss (missile hit her magazine) other ships were damaged but survived mainly due to a fortunate event on the PNS Dacca when it was realized that a Machine Gun could intercept an incoming missile in its last approach phase. Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapons_system

The Indian losses included INS Khurki, INS Kipran which was damaged beyond repair (by the PNS Hangor, though I may be wroong on that).

The Indian Navy performed well in 71 no doubt. But so did Pakistan Navy in the West at least. The fact remains the ships sunk were mostly gunboats, not capital ships. The Shahjahan was damaged but survived. Idleguy is using his own interpretation of the 71 score. A single click on his profile will reveal why.

 * Just quote your sources, cuz this is not a fight but a representation of history. I included 4 references to the war, 2 of them were infact from Pakistan authors and 1 from a neutral organization while the final reference quoted the official losses as reported by Pakistan Navy and Indian Navy. Now how can this be a biased view? Instead you go ahead delete the very references. Your reference of CIWS is about a brave incident, but the scope of this conflict cannot cover every such incident. for instance PNS RAJSHAHI is known to have had a dramatic escape, but like I mentioned a war is not about isolated incidents but the sum of it all. And the fact remains that pakistan navy lost badly. Infact among all the 3 divisions, the Navy suffered the relatively most casulities going by percentage (not numbers) of both personnel and fleet lost.

 * As for your claim that "In the West, only the PNS Kyhber was a loss" and that pakistan navy did well in the western theatre, compared to the eastern side, please remember it is only partially true. Operation Trident, the name given to the attack on Karachi resulted in the destruction of 2 destroyers and a minesweeper. It was followed up with Operation Python which was also successful. both were via the arabian sea. Weighing these losses against the only success in the western front, i.e. sinking of INS Kurki and claiming that the western side did well due to this isolated incident, is nothing short of propaganda.

 * Finally I have researched the entire article to bring the facts to light, your "research" dwells more on where I come from. Also while I do have a profile here, I suppose you don't. It does not matter from which country a contributor is as long as the information is unbiased. If americans won the world war, it has to be stated so, irrespective of whether the contributor is american. How does an article retain a NPOV? By quoting neutral references and official statements. According to Wikipedia policy, "Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source" You have neither found facts from any neutral side nor cited sources, so your argument doesn't hold water. Your "gunboat" controversy can easily be resolved if you can quote the sources and found to be neutral. I would gladly include it without hesitation. the quote of "pakistan lost half its navy" was taken from a Pakistan author's book. If you can't accept a Pakistani critical comment do I then replace it with an Indian comment?

 * And going by your reponse I assume you haven't read any of the sources given but still stick to your version. Also by deleting the whole body of the article you are violating Wikipedia's rules on NPOV "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" which clearly advocates against such practices of deleting. If you are going to read only the pakistan navy's official website then you can be a frog in a well since they only mention the sinking of INS Kurki. Be neutral, cite your sources and accept the truth. --Idleguy 08:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Er Idleguy. Only two destroyers were hit by missiles. PNS Khyber(sunk) PNS Shahjahan(written off) as opposed to INS Khurki (sunk) INS Kipran (written off). Operation Trident resulted in about 1 caualty that was a minessweeper. Your nuetral source was a Russian one, anyone with a knowledge of the Sub-Continient knows that the Ruskies are hardly "neutral". As for Pakistani, only Tariq Ali mentions "half" the fleet (he is an ex-student leader) not a Navy Man. I have read all the article you have "referenced". THe Pakistani ones mention the threat posewd by Indian missles ( they were real), not the half a fleet loss as you like to say. After the Khyber loss the events on the Dacca showed the Navy how to handle the missiles and this led to the development of CIWS.

Not only were SLOCs in the West open, the Indian Navy did not blockade Karachi, they fired a pair of missile at it. Lets stick to REAL history not the Bollywood kind.

 * I never mentioned they blockaded Karachi anywhere. Not in this article or anywhere else related. The operation was aimed at attacking Karachi, and to be more specific the harbour and the naval vessels. In the process both warships as well as merchant navy vessels were destroyed or damaged. The blockade was on Dhaka. there is a difference between blockade and attack.

 * And of the 2 neutral assessments, one was from b.harry only the other was from an ex-russian source. even that source simply quoted both indian and pakistan's OFFICIAL versions and was not an assessment. one has to remember that no naval officer in his right mind would accept that they lost badly and so is the case with the other pakistan source.

 * thirdly in the context of references, people in pakistan conveniently forget the Hamood-ur-Rahman Commission Report of 1971, which for information was formed by Bhutto to ascertain the facts. It stopped short of stating that a commander of the pakistan navy actually ran away from his post. "That an inquiry be held into the circumstances under which Commander Gul Zareen of the Pakistan Navy was carried from Khulna to Singapore on the 7th of December, 1971, by a French ship called M.V. Fortescue, thus abandoning his duties at PNS Titumir Naval Base, Khulna."  The full report which is covered up in pakistan can be read here http://www.bangla2000.com/Bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm

 * please re-read the 2nd reference from the pakistan commander(retd) which states that PNZ Khyber the destroyer was lost. if u dig deep collaborating other sources into how and where it was lost, u will come to know that it was lost in the western theatre during operation trident. PNS Shajahan another destroyer was also destroyed in the same operation apart from the minesweeper PNS Muhafiz which was lost in the same conflict. this again from a pakistan source. finally, tariq ali is an eminent scholar and not just an "ex-student leader" and has written atleast a dozen books on political science and history. it might be that in pakistan freedom of the press and freedom of governance is lacking but the facts cannot be dismissed summarily. --Idleguy 06:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all the Humood-ur-Rehman commission report is NOT covered up in Pakistan, it was declassified in 1999.(the thirty year rule) The war aims of the Indian Navy were to blockade the port of Karachi and cut maritime comunications. The aim of the PN was to prevent this from happening. While the PNS Khyber was sunk and the Shahjahan damaged, the Indian Navy lost Khurki and Kipran damaged. After this the Indian Navy broke off and there was not any action by either Navy since they were all to scared the Pakistanis of Indian Missiles and the Indians of the Pakstani Subs. So what happned. A tactical draw, but a strategic victory for Pakistan since it ensured that Maritime communictaions were not servered nor Karachi blocked. IN other words the Navy achieved its objective.

Yes there were officers who behaved badly as did ones who fought well and bravely. This is true of all navies and indeed all organizations. I can agree that the Navy was short-sighted in not having a stronger force in the East, but till 71 niether had expected to ever fight there.

And there is freedom of the press, pls do not believe the so called Freedom Rankings, they only compare the Wests attitudes and than randomly place the rest (check out India's ranking if you don't believe me.)

The official Pakistani source cites the loss of the Khyber amd PNS Ghazi and the Indian losses. This is not disputed by me at all. What is are your asserations that i) The Indian Navy suffered "negligable" loss. That is completely false.

ii) The Pakistan Navy 'lost'. The war in the West was a stalemate.

You say no officer will ever accept that he lost. Well the Japanese at Midway and the French at Trafalger (ever heard of THOSE?) would admit it, since it stared them in the face. THe Pakistani fleet was not destroyed ut successfully managed to achieve its pre-war objective (in the west at least.)

I am sorry idleguy (love the name by the way), but your knowleddge of Naval History and Strategy is nothing short of Pathetic. You suscribe to a Bollywood interpretation of history backed up by a shallow and selective interpretation of the facts at hand. Well no fear this is after all Wikipedia and you just need to browse around and learn.

cheers

 * The Hamood-ur-Rahman commission report was made public in Pakistan after they published it in the press in India. Is this freedom of press? a commission that originates from one country is not allowed for public knowledge until a neighbouring country gives out the information? The findings of the commission were held confidential even from top brass which reflects poorly on the information mechanism. the 30 year rule was just to hoodwink people because had it been so then it would have come to light only on 2004. however the copies were obtained by indian media in 1999 (25 years since the commission was completed in 1974-75) and once they made it public pakistan was bound to follow.

 * The world "negligible" was removed a couple of revisions back. I think you aren't reading the article. that was done even before u made the previous post.

 * Official pakistan sources of 1971 (read the newspaper archive in a public library if they store those) clearly stated that they lost more than just pns khyber and pns shahjahan(damaged). the naval website of pakistan conveniently ignores the losses and would gladly advertise the lone "kill" of INS khurki. Please read the report "Story of the Pakistan Navy", Naval HQ, Islamabad ,1991 that states in no uncertain terms how much the losses were. THE OFFICIAL VERSION. Pakistan officials are quite naive in ignoring its own official version assuming people forget the past and stick to what they say now.

 * I would like to see you stick to the point and tell me  if it was not sunk by INS Veer? Did you even know that 3 billion dollars worth of damage, most of the oil reserves and ammunition had been lost in and around Karachi port after the first series of attacks? and yet u call it a "a strategic victory for Pakistan"? May I ask how losing 7 warships (+couple of damages) is a strategic victory while inflicting 1 casuality (+1 damage)? All this just in the western side. If such is the thinking then no doubt the "strategy" worked fine for India in freeing Bangladesh. The objective of the Indian Navy was to inflict maximum casualities on the Karachi port and bottle it up. not "blockade", as there is a subtle difference between the two which translates to a lot in practice. The first was the operation trident which resulted in the sinking of Khyber and muhafiz and damage of shahjahah, and another merchant ship from US "Venus Challenger" ship carrying ammunitions went down during the operation. This was followed up by another partially successful operation called Operation Python during which PNS Dacca was damaged and a freighter and partrol boats were sunk. The Operation Triumph was the lone failure when pns hangor sunk ins khurkri and damaged another warship the INS Kirpan and not "Kipran" as u think. And by this time, the war nearing a close so it would have been a waste of resources to engage in further conflict in the west when the east had nearly fallen, that explains the reason why after the final operation no more naval attacks took place. I bet you have never heard of these operations yet continue to read the latest official line that omits all the failures.

The fact is Pakistan actually lost more primary warships in the western front than the eastern front. the eastern front with the exception of pns ghazi lost primarily coast guard boats, merchant navy vessels and gunboats (or converted fishing boats as u claim without giving me the proof). If it's of dubious claim and the loss cannot be corraborated or if the damage isn't serious enough(reclaimed/repaired vessel) then it doesn't merit an inclusion here. for instance PNS Zulfiquar was hit by friendly fire by PAF, but was later recovered and wouldn't really be classified as a kill.

 * You said "your knowleddge of Naval History and Strategy is nothing short of Pathetic". First Mr. Admiral I have to remind you that the naval defeats at midway and trafalgar and leyte gulf were clearly "battles" that naturally had only a victor and loser. I think you are confusing a battle with an operation. no where in ind-pak history has a naval "battle" taken place. You are unable to grasp the ocean of a difference between the words BATTLE and operation/attack and yet try to sound as if your knowledge of naval strategy and history is sound.

 * btw, I don't watch Bollywood movies or any regional indian movies for that matter on a regular basis. The song dance routine masala is for the masses. Even if I do watch any Indian movie, rest assured that they generally aren't the sunny deol or shahrukh or "patriotic" ones u are referring about.

 * Finally, if the original OFFICIAL casuality figures from Pakistan and India plus other neutral and pakistan sources are selective, by all means they will be used. because if i used primarily Indian sources then the figure will bloat up beyond recognition. remember that when u talk about neutrality. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible without distorting the truth. --Idleguy 19:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all apologies on the "negligent' part.

Secondly the minesweeper was not a major surface vessel.

Thirdly, thanks for the clarification on the INS Kipans name.

Now you say that 7 major warships were sunk, and than you contradict yourself by saying the majority were gunboats.

Converted Trawler: the defination of a Gunboat.

Now a strategic victory and a tactical victory are different. You may be defeted on the battle field but may achieve whatever your objective was. Example in the Battle of Jutland the Brits lost more ships but the German fleet remained in port for the remainder of the war.

THe purpose of the Indian Navy was to blockade Karachi and cut off maritime communications. They failed in both. It was not to inflict as much damage on the PN on its own at least. THe damage had to have a purpose, to reduce the PN's fighting ability so as to achieve the objective.

THe Indian Navy fought well and can be proud of 71, but the fact is that both Navy's after their initial losses were not egar to fight.

I am not disputing the figures but you interpratation of them.

cheers

 * The figure 7 was wrong, i admit. It was actually 5 (2 destroyers, one minesweeper one submarine and a fully armed coast guard). other vessels were minor or not primary warships like gunboats smaller coast guard boats, merchant vessels and allied freighters - most notably from the US carrying ammunition. A minesweeper is still considered a major naval ship and according to the foremost authority on naval warfare, Jane's Defence it is one of the several "fighting ships". the total losses therefore would come to nearly 30 vessels, gunboats and minor vessels included.

 * The fact is by the time Pakistan Navy inflicted the first casuality on the Indian Navy, the war war just a couple of days away from being over and therefore there wasn't any strategic reason for the indian navy to deploy resources in the west. the objective of Indian navy, to put it simply, was to attack the Karachi harbour early in the war and thus cripple the Navy from trying to reach the east. this was achieved and Pakistan Navy had their hands full in protecting their headquarters, thus losing the plot. being eager to fight does not fetch results, being objective does.

 * Again the word is "bottled up" Karachi not "blockade". there is a lot of difference. the blockade was only on dhaka.

 * A gunboat is seldom a converted trawler. They are full fighting pint sized units by their own right. It could have been that in this particular war pakistan navy decided to convert fishing boats into gunboats as claimed by you, but unless I see proof I don't think that is a valid statement.

 * I'm not interpreting anything and have made some changes to have a more positive and neutral tone in the article, but some general consensus from various quarters have to be included. with limited resources the navy fought against overwhelming odds but that doesn't mean that they were able to achieve anything significant in the whole picture of the war. --Idleguy 14:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

A neutral Wikipedian's comments (failed attempt to mediate)
IMO The phrase "largely overrun" should only be used if Pakistan Navy vessels were either destroyed or forced into retreat much more frequently than the Indian Navy vessels were (say, 70% or the battles). Otherwise, I would suggest a more neutral phrase like "the Navy struggled to keep the coast protected."

For now I have removed the sentence By the end of the war, "Pakistan Navy had lost half its Naval fleet" (Pakistan author Tariq Ali). AFAIK, in modern warfare, comparative losses are normally counted in tons of shipping, this being a reasonable manner of equating the economic and military effect of disparate styles and sizes of vessel. When or if comparisons (whether between the adversaries or between before and after) are done on that basis, I suggest vague statements from whomever and of whatever nationality do not belong here.

Please remember that this is an article about the Pakistan Navy not about the war. Some of what is being argued over does not belong on this page: it should go onto a separate article to do with the war. That includes at least the data on the Indian losses under 'Role in 1971 War', if not the losses for both sides (to avoid replication). Such an article is also the place for any detailed engagements during the war. If this war is the one covered by Bangladesh Liberation War then there should be a link here to it (as Pakistani Civil War?) and a naval section inserted in it.

Of the two pictures that seem to be contentious, I have included the one of PNS/M Ghazi. I see no reason for it not to be here but I have excluded the word 'proud' as sounding jingoistic and not at all verifiable. Until or unless there is textual mention of the Commandos, I see no reason for there to be a picture and have excluded it.

Now that a third person (me) has stepped in to help sort this mess out, I ask you BOTH to REFRAIN FROM VANDALISM and to respect my time. I don't claim to have the article perfect but will keep an eye out. I suggest that if you want to re-introduce any text that I have missed out, you place it here an let me look it over and include it or comment on it.

--Douglas 13:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Mr Douglas before you accuse me of vandalism, please see other pages like Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 where this user has been criticized by others for reverting atleast a dozen times without any action being taken on his account. And every edition is a "cut and paste" operation from a set of sites like www.pakdef.info etc. Even the jingoistic descriptions of photos which u toned done (and i further wikified after modifying) were lifted word by word, error by error from many of these pakistan only sites. they are not only copyvio but blatant POV in text and images.

 * I have been reasonable so far with this POV vandalism (who uses sock puppets like Napoleon12 and other IP addresses) and the reason I had to remove a whole 2 paragraphs for 1965 war was that there were no human casualities. Moreover this paragraph is a repetition of a statement made in the history section. Again the paragraph is an exact redundant repetition from the wikipedia link on the 65 war.

 * Finally as you will know this user reverts to his favorite version no matter what any of us think or discuss here. He has waaay too much time on his hands that he does a blanket revert to the one where his version of propaganda no matter what other wikipedians have to say on the issue.

 * If you do really want to mediate then I suggest you look up the other wikilinks of various wars I've mentioned before and the complicated edit history and the many complaints made against him by various users including in the 3 revert rule policy etc. before trying to assume or presume anything. This user has made it complicated for anyone trying to get the big picture on what he is doing but a look at his edit history shows he has no reasoning and will act like a child to get his fav. version of history. --Idleguy 14:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Idleguy, one of the way I believe in mediating is to allow a fresh start and to NOT look backwards or sideways. It is not my intention to consider any other page's edits: just because something doesn't belong elsewhere doesn't mean it won't belong here (and quite frankly, I don't have time, anyway).  I intend "allowing" (I do realise that it is not up to me to allow or disallow - I can only arbitrate if people let me) all users to have their say, without reference to past actions.

 * Asking people not to vandalise is not saying that they have vandalised. Keep you hair on!  :-)  I do NOT claim to be an expert on this subject and I do not need to be.  I have no views nor cares about the subject matter other than a desire to see a good encyclopedic topic (I do have some interest in military history generally and in sailing).

 * It appears to me so far that you resist my mediation attempt. At least you have explained your edits here, however.  For some reason, my earlier search didn't turn up the 1965 war as an article.  Since the text is there, all that was needed here is a small stub linking to it.  Similarly, I feel the amount of text needed here for the Atlantique Incident is quite small, acting as a brief mention and link.

 * I've added a few more details and removed the repetitive section on the 1965 war since it's already mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no more info on that to expand nor does it deserve a seperate heading as there were no casualities on either side.

 * The reason why I mentioned that you look at the article edit history of not just this page but also the other wikilinks was that this person under various aliases has been involved in doing the same. other users have listed his IPs and sockpuppets like Napoleon12 to Vandalism in progress & 3RR as he indulges in blatant copyvio images and text.Idleguy 03:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I see that you are resisting my attempts to make the page have a NPOV and wasting my time trying to mediate. I am beginning to understand someone's desire to simply revert your edits, even though there are a couple of useful sentences you have added.  I'm backing off - I have better things to do.  This page should serve as a useful pointer to admins about who is causing trouble here.  --Douglas 10:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I simply don't understand how improving an article by reducing a redundant statement and adding the casualities in a naval incident has convinced you to convert this into a POV debate. Since nothing has been added or removed I think this is quite hasty without fullly knowing the facts or history. I assume that you have not fully read the other person's various other edits under different IPs who stubbornly refused to come to debate his views or back his claims with neutral evidence. Neither have you read that site from which this miscreant tries to "cut-copy-paste" the partisan version which he tried to thrust upon us (www.pakdef.info) making it sound like this was just a neutrality debate. This would also have been a copyvio problem. removing POV. --Idleguy 13:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of copyvio images and POVs. And poor mediation.
I suggest user Douglas tries to read the references and also http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/october/military.htm (from Pak commander) to get a full picture of why this article is not POV. The user which Douglas loves to refer to has been temporarily blocked (though he might return again). Someone else has already listed the images and text he has uploaded as copyvio and so the images have to be removed. But Douglas would assume that I'm pushing my version of history and try to revert to copyvio text and images or put a simply POV without reading anything in the references section or on the internet. I asked why POV was inserted when all i did was improve the article(like i've done again), instead he fails to answer the question. I think pov statements aren't to be taken lightly when considerable research has been done. What happened was this: a vandal and copyvio user started pushing his POV across various india pak related articles. suddenly when his sources and neutrality and copyrights were questioned some others mistook it otherwise including Douglas. Previous debates were settled and the neutrality of articles are disputed only when the figures are sketchy. In this scenario there was little of that. I'll explain why:

 * The 1961 war involved nothing more than bombing of Dwarka port and no casualites save a "few cows" as someone put it jokingly.

 * The 71 war figures were taken (if anyone reads the full article) from mainly official sources from both sides. this was then correlated with neutral sources including indian and pakistan authors on the topic.

 * Other areas like "growing hegemony" is based on the article i'v ementioned in the top of this section by a Pak military person. The jist of it states that India has a 6:1 naval superiority and growing due to economic reasons.

PLEASE READ AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. But don't be hasty for anyone can add {pov}, but it takes considerable time in developing a fairly reasonable article.--Idleguy 13:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately I see it may be necessary to point out Idleguy's erroneous statements on this page. He says "The user which Douglas loves to refer to..." as though I had references or dialogue with anyone other than himself.  To make it clear, it is my impression that Idleguy deliberately obstructed mediation in settling POV.  The page history shows clearly that during the time of my attempting to help sort out the dispute on this page, he reverted my edits and removed the NPOV dispute statement I inserted with a stub even though it was obvious that it was his editing I was declaring as POV.  Idleguy loves to try blaming all this on someone else (who was not blameless in my opinion) but who had nothing to do with the problems he himself caused.  As I suspect anyone else editing this page will discover, Idleguy seems to consider this page "his" and attempts to balance or even add constructively to it are likely to be blocked unless he is happy with the change.  I do not know whether the page is currently NPOV or not: last time I checked, it was slanted at least as much toward India's POV as the Indian Navy article is.  --Douglas 11:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Going by Douglas's statements the impression is that he either doesn't read the article or the edit history properly and comes to half baked conclusions, conveniently forgetting his own statements. In one of his previous reply he says "I am beginning to understand someone's desire to simply revert your edits,". This "someone" was whom I meant when I said "Douglas loves to refer". He was a constant problem across all articles related to India-Pakistan and since then was banned under the 3RR. Unfortunately he seems oblivious to that fact.

 * I don't consider this or any other page to be mine, for if it so, I would have put up copyright info. DUH! The problem was that the user I mentioned added copyvio text blatantly - and copyvio has no place in Wikipedia policy. Another example of Douglas' impatience shows in the fact that I haven't even edited this article in almost 3 weeks (and even those last few reverts of mine, as anyone would understand were to remove an external link - a forum that required a login); yet he continues to believe that I somehow oversee the development of this article according to my whim and fancy. I'm very much for a crisp article that does not compromise history and the underlying facts - all without any copyvio text.

 * Finally the issue of POV can be solved by the use of references as stated in official policy on NPOV. As one can easily see, the references on the war and the naval attacks in particular were gleaned entirely from Non-Indian sources (half were Pakistan authors) which puts little doubt on the neutrality or the accuracy of the facts. If anyone cannot take the time to read the references but simply wishes to tag it as POV, is simply wasting time trying to mediate or for that matter even understand the article.

Destroyers
The articles says ten and ten says none. Which is it? Jinian 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.pak-defence.com/training_of_pna.html
 * In Pakistan Navy on Mon Jul 17 15:34:58 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
 * In Pakistan Navy on Thu Jul 27 00:52:20 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghazi issue
To anon. See the article PNS Ghazi which uses a reference from B.Harry (just hosted on Bharat Rakshak not written by them) that states that Indian ships were actively searching for Ghazi and not "bottled" as DefenceJournal (a Pakistani source) claims. This is backed up by another neutral source Orbat.com which states nowhere that she was "bottling" up the "entire IN western fleet" as you keep claiming. It merely states "she was deployed off Bombay to attack only Heavy ships or ships moving intercept Dwarka Task Force" and goes on to say "she tracked several ships moving in and out of Bombay, but did not attack as she was to attack only the heavy targets. Hardly the kind of bottling you'd normally associate with a Naval blockade!. Please try to use non-biased sources, when available, in the future to avoid these very sort of exaggerations. Tx --Idleguy 13:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy. The article used as a reference is written by Mr. B. Harry who is a known Indian origin contributor and can hardly be classified as a 'non partisan' source. So that source should be negated due to blind nationalistic bias introduced by the author. The submarine did attack an A/A frigate which came out of the harbor as is mentioned on the very source you provided. The blockade was directed towards the Indian Navy's western fleet and not towards any civilian shipping. Please know that this is an encyclopedia and the more verifiable information it has the better, even if it goes against your point of view. Thanks. Red aRRow

 * Something wrong with the way you read? Even if he is taken as an Indian the source still clearly says "the Indian Navy sent out 5 escorts to search an area of 5000 square miles in the southern approaches to Bombay and picked up several sonar contacts, which were attacked." and adds about the A/A frigate u mention "the Ghazi in reality caused no damage to the Indian Navy" vis a vis the claim that INS Brahmaputra was torpedoed. A claim discounted and abandoned even by PN after the war in the wake of the ship being paraded by the IN.

 * The second source orbat.com (neutral) too doesn't mention any "blockade" which you quote. Except that highly biased and jingoistic (quite naturally being a military publication) Defence Journal. As long as you keep basing your assumptions and facts on a POV source it's not likely to be accepted in an encyclopedia, especially when the Indian version on PNS Ghazi seemed to be one of a hunting down approach in the same war! There is a difference between quoting some source and a reliable source. Sites like Bharat Rakshak and Defence Journal are highly opinionated sources and are to be used with extreme caution and only when there seems to be no better alternative or when the writer of that particular article is a third party. For this purpose orbat.com a neutral source makes no mention of a "blockade" in the western port. A blockade no matter of merchant or naval is a serious enough one to be noted by independent historians and if you do have evidence of the same from a neutral source I would be glad to accept it. See Reliable sources for the official wikipedia policy on the same and you'll understand. Tx --Idleguy 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy. Judging from the discussions above and from your contributions, it isn't the first time you are blending in blind nationalism and propaganda into articles related to Pakistan. If some words such as 'blockade' are causing you discomfort go ahead and perform the minor edits. However blindly removing complete paragraphs of facts and historical evidence just because they do not conform to your personal versions of events or history will not help. Red aRRow

 * Don't worry, none of my edits are without a reliable source - the reason why they stand the test of time and are accepted by other non Indian/Pakistani editors. The same which cannot be said of yours or other Pakistani editors - and some Indians - who edit based on a "selective history" approach. I also infer from your failure to provide a neutral source for the 'blockade' - other than the blatantly biased DefenceJournals, PakDefs etc. it is but a confirmation of the statement I made. I don't have to conform to Urdu tales on history or propagandas by dictatorships, if that is what you intend to say. --Idleguy 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To idleguy: I have removed the contentious words of 'blockade' and made other minor adjustments in order to reach a compromise. Hopefully the changes will be to the satisfaction of all parties. Red aRRow

 * OK. Seems fair enough. --Idleguy 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fleet
The fleet strength is not uptodate.

The Official website is provididing information on 1 Leander class frigate and it is used as training ship.

3 French Eridan Class Mine Hunter vessels is already listed no need to add it again and again.

From official website only 3 Jalalat class are in service

These two were inducted in 1970's and must have been decommissioned. Chanakyathegreat 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4 Sabqat Class (Huangfeng Class) Fast Attack Crafts
 * 4 Hoku Class Inshore Missile Boats

To Chanakyathegreat: 'Must have been decommissioned' isn't actually verifiable unless we can find a source. By the way why are you deleting the line which states PNS Ghazi was deployed against Indian Western Fleet at Bombay?? It doesn't seem to be a provocative or a biased statement. I'm confused. 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How did the PNS Ghazi go down?
Says in the article on the PNS Ghazi that she went down in unexplained circumstances. Says in the Pakistan Navy article that she went down because of a mishap while laying mines. Methinks the two stories need to jive and they currently don't. Opinions? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indian government claims one of their ships sunk it. However, since their were involved in the war, its not a NPOV. The Pakistani government claims it was destroyed in an explosion while laying mines. A neutral source that I think is stated in the Navy article states there was no ships in the Bay of Bengal during the time the Indian government claimed to have sunk the ship. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify, I'm not asking that we state one reason or the other. But we do state the same thing in both stories. Do check this reference - I think you'll find it neutral. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: For what it's worth, I think these Ghazi guys were ballsy as hell to even operate this close to a major enemy port. Let's do a good job with their article, shall we?
 * Well this article is a about the Pakistan Navy and not about the sub so it is better leave information on how it went down in the sub article. (It was a war...so they could have been under orders) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Separate articles doesn't change the facts - And the facts seem to be that nobody knows how it went down. Then that's what needs to be in both articles.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Agosta-cutaway.jpg
The image File:Agosta-cutaway.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

10 Atlantique incident
The statement that "At the speed of 400 knots at which the shootdown occurred most of the wreckage could have been expected to land at least 25 miles from the shootdown; the fact that all of the wreckage fell in Pakistani territory would tend to vindicate Pakistani claims that the aircraft did not violate indian airspace." needs close examination - or deletion.

The aircraft crashed within Pakistani territorial waters - that seems clear. But that does not "vindicate Pakistani claims that the aircraft did not violate indian airspace". Absolutely not - this is a non sequitur. The plane was within Pakistanti territory when shot down, that is all. I recommend the deletion of this statement.JohnC (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No you can't. If it violated Indian airspace, it needs to be known SReader21 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Submarine
Agosta 70 are not equipped with AIP. Agosta 90 are; Hamza (agosta 90B/Khalid class) was built with the Mesma AIP and the other two subs in that class were to/are retrofitted with it. However the point on the nuclear powered submarine probably needs to be updated Barath s (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Frigate
There's a discussion on the frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.86.91 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Navy Chief Corruption Puts Navy at Risk
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/09/pakistan-navy-chief-corruption-puts.html

I think this is the same as this author:

http://www.amazon.com/Century-Islamic-State-Meinhaj-Hussain/dp/0615377505

But it seems to be too much of a personal blog to use here. Hcobb (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New ship
Well, second-hand, but new to the Pakistan Navy. PNS Rah Naward was purchased in September 2010. Not sure what use she will be put to, but suspect it will be sail training and PR-type work. Not sure where to add the ship to the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Vessels
I am looking for a complete list of all RPN/PN vessels (all types) used from 1947 to date. Is there one on Wikipedia? if not can it be created? thanks Rzafar (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PAKISTANI SOURCE
the pakistani losses were only pns.khyber, pns.muhafiz and pns.ghazi(sunk due to its own mine). while pns.shahjehan was damaged and it was tugged back to karachi and repaired and it kept on serving in the pakistan navy till 1982 wen until it was scrapped off. on the eastern theatre pakistan navy lost only 1 gunboat (commilla) and got 1 damaged (rajshahi). all these gunboats were improvised fishing boats fixed with 46mm guns(witness to surrender by brig.siddique salik). one the western front only 1 gunboat was lost. the indian losses on the other hand were also heavy.one the eastern front she lost 3 gunboats to her own 3 MiGs,near khulna, almost two dozen sailors were killed and more than 40 were captured by pakistan's 53 brigade comanded by brig.makhmad hayat.this is not mentioned by any indian in the discussion. on the western front indian lost 1 frigate,ins.khukri, while 1 was damaged,the ins.kirpan. moreover the pakistan navy and airforce collectively destroyed 5 indian gunboats. and 11 IAF warplanes were shotdown by the pakistan navy. an indian naval alizee was shotdown by an f-104 starfighter of PAF. a latest research led by indians state tat the karachi oil terminals were set ablaze by IAF and not missile boats(http://www.indiadefenceupdate.com/news94.html). the indians tried to block karachi and they cuz of pakistani submarines. the pakistani navy was never defeated,had it been so the indian navy wud hav been anchoring near karachi lik american navy did in saipan or okinawa. the war ended in a stalemate with indian navy suffering slighly greater losses than pakistan navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.223.13 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pak Navy Northern Naval Command (NNC) Eastern Naval Command (ENC) ??
Does Pak Navy has Northern Naval Command (NNC) and Eastern Naval Command (ENC) Please Verify this, it is given in the InfoBox of PAk navy but seems to me a mistake. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They do exist as mentioned in the article later. Remove wikilinking from them as they are pointing to Indian Navy commands. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 * i doubt that the Commands (even if it exists) are named in such a way as mentioned right now in the info box of the article. The Fact that Pakistan has Northern Command though it only has sea on its south and south-western border. Is beyond my imagination. Id leave it for interested editors, to sort out. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't talk about just the info box. There's some information about them in the body. The installations in Islamabad and Azad Kashmir come under Northern command. Removed the incorrect wikilinks. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pakistan Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060928154252/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Pakistan Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120603221244/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk:80/pnwc/main.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/pnwc/main.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080416163254/http://www.yonca-onuk.com:80/mrtp_33.htm to http://www.yonca-onuk.com/mrtp_33.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120516085915/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/frigate.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/frigate.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120527232149/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/SURFACE%20WARRIORS%20-%20PN.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/SURFACE%20WARRIORS%20-%20PN.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120208105519/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk:80/x-crafts.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/x-crafts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150803004951/http://www.globalsecurity.org:80/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003183518/http://www.cusnc.navy.mil:80/articles/2008/019.html to http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2008/019.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070726120430/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/cmcp1.html to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/cmcp1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

List of admirals
Does anyone object to me splitting of the list of serving admirals on the page into a separate article such as List of Pakistan Navy admirals, along the lines of List of South African admirals or List of Australian admirals? This list can include serving and former admirals. Thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Pakistan Navy. 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/20090214201007/http://pakistantimes.net:80/2005/09/06/top2.htm to http://pakistantimes.net/2005/09/06/top2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235725/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C07%5C21%5Cstory_21-7-2009_pg7_29 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C07%5C21%5Cstory_21-7-2009_pg7_29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313073901/http://www.defencejournal.com:80/nov98/angrysea.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/angrysea.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030235952/http://www.orbat.com:80/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726120430/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/cmcp1.html to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/cmcp1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104080546/http://www.defence.pk:80/20110322/pns-alamgir-ohp-class-frigate-reach-pakistan/ to http://www.defence.pk/20110322/pns-alamgir-ohp-class-frigate-reach-pakistan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210164027/http://www.ameinfo.com:80/105294.html to http://www.ameinfo.com/105294.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pakistan Navy
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pakistan Navy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lancer Publishers, Goldrick": From Haji Mohammad Siddiq Choudri:  From PNS Ghazi:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove both lists of ships and submarines
I think we can remove both the lists of ships and submarines from this article. There already exists an article List of active Pakistan Navy ships which contains the same duplicate information. This will be in line with other Navy pages as well where the list lives in a separate article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The list of ships and submarines has been removed from this page since an updated list now exists at List of active Pakistan Navy ships. Similarly, the list of naval aircraft is removed since one exists at Pakistan Naval Air Arm. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

List of admirals
I created a list of Pakistan Navy admirals which was then moved to a list of serving Navy admirals. I solicited opinions at WPMILHIST and the concensus was that a complete list was a good idea so I recreated List of Pakistan Navy admirals. This is in line with similar lists on WP. A group of users disagree and keep changing it back to a list of serving admirals only. I am tired of reverting - can someone else help with this? If there needs to be two lists so be it. Gbawden (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pakistan Navy. 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/20111205154529/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/history.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/history.htm
 * Added tag to http://pakdef.org/the-first-destroyer/
 * Added tag to http://pakdef.org/1965-war-3/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926174134/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301204938/http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm to http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vif2_project/indo_pak_war_1971.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614084157/http://pakistantimes.net/2005/01/04/top.htm to http://pakistantimes.net/2005/01/04/top.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009003349/http://www.onepakistan.com/news/local/karachi/81137-pn-model-village-handed-over-to-idps.html to http://www.onepakistan.com/news/local/karachi/81137-pn-model-village-handed-over-to-idps.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060704062828/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/qasim.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/qasim.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213203941/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_pakistan_delegation_070519/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_pakistan_delegation_070519/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612175443/http://www.msa.org.pk/His.html to http://www.msa.org.pk/his.html

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) 10:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi, Please discuss your specific issues here. What is the reason for removing all updated information? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Firstly, you did not build consensus Consensus to remove or edit content. Second, you removed a section and merged into one conveniently removing context. Although, I agree there maybe some outdated content. Third, all of what was removed was properly cited.

 * The image you continuously remove of Type 054A is there as per Wiki policy. The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_content I do not understand as to why you want to remove it when (a) it is the variant that will be commissioned by Pakistan (b) it depicts a visual of Type 054A Faraz (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * So your specific issue is with the removal of the Type 54A frigate image from this page? If this the issue it can be discussed. This is does not warrant the entire revert you did on the page which was a copy-edit and update of the ships and submarines sections.
 * The point you have raised is why is this image not relevant on this page. To that I will answer as follows:
 * (1) It is the image of a ship which is not a Pakistan Navy ship
 * (2) It is the image of a ship which is potentially of the same class ordered by Pakistan and will be commissioned some time in the future. Here we do not know if there will be Pakistan specific modifications to the existing class and thus this might not be the correct representation.
 * (3) There are already enough images on that page which are directly relevant to the Pak Navy and this adds to the clutter.
 * (4) It is standard practice across many Navy pages not to add such images.
 * Hope this answers your question. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Please be specific on which content was removed that was WP:DUE for this page. I removed the armament specifications of some ships since they belong the respective class pages. The delivery dates of ships was removed for the same reason. Other content was outdated and the equipment was updates based on List of active Pakistan Navy ships. If you wish to add content which is WP:DUE on this page, please do. But please do not for the sake of content inflation, add content which belongs on the ship class page, not here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yarmook Corvette.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pakistan Navy ATR-72 and Luna-NG UAV.jpg

1fast year student
i wanted to nayi soldier 2400:ADCC:116:9400:AC65:2500:6244:EBE0 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pakistan Navy


text:
Terik people

The Terik people are a Kalenjin group inhabiting parts of the Kakamega and Nandi Districts of western Kenya, numbering about 23,324 people. They live wedged in between the Nandi, Luo and Luhya (Luyia) peoples. Among the Luo they are known as nyangóóri, but to the Terik, this is a derogatory term. The Terik call themselves Terikeek; in their usage, 'Terik' refers to their language, land, and culture.

History
According to their own oral history the Terik are "people of Mount Elgon"; this is confirmed by linguistic evidence as well as by Bong'om traditions that "the people who later called themselves Terik were still Bong'om when they left Elgon and moved away in a southern direction" (Roeder 1986:142).

In pre-colonial times, relations between the Terik and the Nandi (their eastern neighbours) were characterized by mutual raids for cattle, land and women, a perspective still alive among old Terik people. However, in recent years the Terik have increasingly come to perceive the Nandi as friendly relatives. A number of factors have contributed to this change in perspective.

Territorial expansion of the Luhya people (the western neighbours of the Terik) has strained Terik-Luhyia relations during the last decades. Luhya are felt to be a threat to the Terik identity and intermarriage has drastically reduced. The expansion of the Luhya (especially the Logoli group) into Terik territory has been a cause of population pressure. This, along with dwindling agricultural potential in the area, has in the second half of the twentieth century motivated many of the Terik to move eastwards, into 'Nandiland' as they call it. Some Terik even claim that they abandoned their homeland because they were afraid of the Luhya.

The Terik have become increasingly oriented at and assimilated to the Nandi. One of the results is a change towards a Nandi-type age set system. The Terik traditionally have twelve age sets, whereas the Nandi have seven. Terik living in Nandiland tend to name a smaller number of age sets than those living in traditional Terik territory. Terik boys also undergo initiation together with Nandi boys. Assimilation to the Nandi has furthermore been accelerated by the growth of a common Kalenjin consciousness, a process which started in the early 1950s.

In recent years, migration into Nandiland has decreased, and the position of the Terik language has been strengthened. Terik schools now teach Terik language.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Terik people


text:
Sven O. Høiby

Sven Olaf Bjarte Høiby (14 November 1936 – 21 March 2007) was the father of Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway. After his daughter married the Crown Prince, he became a national celebrity due to a number of articles in the yellow press, especially Se og Hør.

Early life
He and Mette-Marit's mother, Marit Tjessem, divorced in 1984. After the divorce, Mette-Marit grew up with her mother, stepfather, and siblings, while visiting her father regularly on weekends. She later revealed in an interview that her father also suffered from alcoholism, which she "had to hide" from her friends. Høiby worked for several years as a journalist in a local newspaper and as a small-scale advertiser and publisher in his hometown. By the time his daughter's relationship to the Crown Prince was publicly known, he had retired from working and was receiving a disability pension.

In his younger days, he participated in athletics. Among others, he achieved a time of 58.0 seconds in the 400 metres hurdles in 1959. He represented the club Kristiansands IF.

Tabloids
Sven O. Høiby became something of a controversial figure following his daughter's marriage to the Crown Prince. The national tabloids and especially the gossip magazine Se og Hør printed several stories where he gave interviews and was presented in less-than-flattering situations.

"En helt vanlig dag på jobben" ("Just another day at the office"), a book published by former Se og Hør journalist Håvard Melnæs, who knew Høiby personally, reveals that Høiby was being paid up to 400,000 Norwegian krone a year by the magazine to appear in articles, and for sharing private pictures and information about his daughter's childhood. The magazine even purchased a mobile phone for him (he couldn't afford one himself) and paid his phone bills as a bonus for his "services".

During this period he made several outspoken comments, and he announced that he was writing a book about Mette-Marit's young son, Marius, her child from a previous relationship. The book never materialised, but the relationship between father and daughter had been strained by this, and Høiby giving information about her to the tabloids. Høiby further estranged himself from his daughter by marrying Renate Barsgård, a former stripper half his age. The couple divorced after three months. At their wedding, folk singer Sputnik was best man.

The magazine and other tabloids have been criticized for taking advantage of a man who seemed to have a less than sound judgment on what kind of articles to participate in. In his book Melnæs reveals that as Høiby had financial problems, he could not afford to say "no" to any suggestions from Se og Hør.

Father and daughter had reportedly reconciled some time before his death and he was, among other events, invited to attend the baptism of his granddaughter, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, in 2004.

Death
On 25 August 2006 Høiby told Se og Hør that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. He died on 21 March 2007, aged 70. Høiby is buried at Kristiansand Cemetery together with his parents.

title: Sven O. Høiby


text: User talk:82.36.37.71

title: User talk:82.36.37.71


text:
Luhya language

Luhya (also Luyia, Luhia or Luhiya) is a Bantu language of western Kenya.

Dialects
The various Luhya tribes speak several related languages and dialects, though some of them are no closer to each other than they are to neighboring non-Luhya languages. For example, the Bukusu people are ethnically Luhya, but the Bukusu dialect is a variety of Masaba. (See Luhya people for details.) However, there is a core of mutually intelligible dialects that comprise Luhya proper:
 * Hanga (OluWanga)
 * Tsotso (OluTsotso)
 * Marama (OluMarama)
 * Kisa (OluShisa)
 * Kabras (LuKabarasi)
 * East Nyala (LuNyala)

Comparison
A comparison between two dialects of Luhya proper, and to two other Bantu languages spoken by the Luhya:

Phonology
The following is the phonology of the Luwanga dialect:

title: Luhya language


text:
O-Town

O-Town is an American boy band formed from the first season of the reality television series Making the Band in 2000. As of 2015, the group consists of Erik-Michael Estrada, Trevor Penick, Jacob Underwood, and Dan Miller. The original line up included Ashley Parker Angel and Ikaika Kahoano, who was replaced by Miller after dropping out of the group.

After releasing two albums near the end of the boy band fad of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the group disbanded in 2003. The group was originally managed by Lou Pearlman during their first season of Making the Band, but later managed by Mike Cronin and Mike Morin for their debut album and remaining television seasons.

Formation and debut album (1999–2001)
O-Town was assembled for the first season of the ABC reality television series Making the Band; the group was named after Orlando, Florida, the city where auditions were held. In the selection process, Lou Pearlman and a panel of judges selected Ashley Parker Angel, Erik Michael Estrada, Trevor Penick, Jacob Underwood, and Ikaika Kahoano. However, Kahoano left for personal reasons and was replaced by Dan Miller.

After season one, former Arista Records executive Clive Davis signed O-Town to his new label J Records. Their first release, the self-titled O-Town, boosted by the publicity of the weekly television series, debuted at no. 5 on the Billboard 200 album chart for sold more than three million copies worldwide. Their first single, "Liquid Dreams", peaked at number 10 on the Billboard Hot 100.

In the late spring of 2001, O-Town released "All or Nothing", which became the biggest hit of their career as a group, reaching no. 3 on the Hot 100. In 2001, the group was the opening act for Britney Spears' Dream Within a Dream Tour in the U.S.

O2 and split (2002–2003)
O-Town's second album O2 was released in November 2002 by J Records. It included a newer single, "We Fit Together". The album was observed to have a different sound from O-Town's debut album, with a mix of "soulful ballads and songs with more of a rock ‘n’ roll approach," according to Contemporary Musicians. MTV News reported that O-Town hoped that the album would show the group to be more than "'NSYNC wannabes." However, with teen pop trending down in listener interest in 2002, O2 did not sell as well as the first O-Town album. As a result, in 2003, J Records released O-Town from their contract, and the group disbanded.

Solo careers (2003–2013)
The members of O-Town moved on to solo careers. The most successful member was Ashley Parker Angel, that was signed to Universal's Blackground Records, also given his own reality show on MTV, There and Back. Angel released a solo album, Soundtrack to Your Life, in 2006. In 2007, he began playing the role of Link Larkin in the Broadway production of Hairspray. Trevor Penick signed to Mach 1 Music that performed as Tre Scott. Erik Michael Estrada stayed in the music business as a songwriter. Jacob Underwood went on to start his own country band, Jacob's Loc.

In 2013, Angel declined to join the O-Town reunion: "It was a difficult decision, that ultimately necessary to move on to the next chapter of my career."

Lines & Circles and single Empty Space (2013–present)
On May 28, 2014, O-Town released a preview of the single "Skydive" on SoundCloud. The single is from their third studio album Lines & Circles. The album was released on August 24, 2014.

In 2017, they premiered a new single "Empty Space" in addition to announcing a new EP. They also announced a new 2017 tour featuring Ryan Cabrera on select dates, as well as some spots on the I Love the 90s nationwide tour.

Their Part 1 EP was released on August 4, 2017.

In June 2019, O-Town planned on filing a trademark for their band name, which Universal Music Group believed was too similar to the Motown Records label.

On August 2, 2019, they released The O.T.W.N. Album.

Members

 * Current
 * Dan Miller (2000–2003, 2013–present)
 * Erik-Michael Estrada (2000–2003, 2013–present)
 * Jacob Underwood (2000–2003, 2013–present)
 * Trevor Penick (2000–2003, 2013–present)
 * Former
 * Ashley Parker Angel (2000–2003)
 * Ikaika Kahoano (2000)

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * O-Town (2001)
 * O2 (2002)
 * Lines & Circles (2014)
 * The O.T.W.N. Album (2019)

Opening act

 * Britney Spears – Dream Within a Dream Tour (2001)
 * Pop2000Tour hosted by Lance Bass. (active)
 * Viral campaign surfaced which suggested O-Town as the headliner for the Upstate NY annual festival at the Afton Fairgrounds. Rumor turned out to be false, disappointing many local fans (2000).

title: O-Town


text:
San Dieguito Union High School District

San Dieguito Union High School District (SDUHSD) is a public school district in northern San Diego County, California. Established in 1936, the district serves over 13,000 students in five middle schools, five comprehensive high schools, and one alternative high school.

History
Prior to 1936, students who lived in coastal North County attended high school in Oceanside. In January 1936, the communities of Encinitas, Cardiff, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Green Valley, and Olivenhain voted in favor to form a new high school district. San Dieguito Union High School, now San Dieguito High School Academy was the flagship school of the district, in which the first classes were held in September 1936. Architect Lillian J. Rice was hired by the district board to design the school.

The district now serves students from five elementary school districts in North County: the Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, Cardiff, Solana Beach, and Del Mar School Districts. Students from those school districts matriculate through the middle schools and high schools.

Subjects of Study
Students in the SDUHSD district have to take 3 years of math, 2 years of sciences, 3 years of humanities and histories, 4 years of English, and 3 years of a foreign language.

Board of trustees
The district is governed by a five-member school board, called the Board of Trustees. Since 2017, trustees are elected directly by voters from five separate areas within the district's boundaries.

The current board trustees include Rimga Viskanta, Katrina Young, Jane Lea Smith, Michael Allman, and Phan Anderson. Viskanta and Smith have served as board president and board vice president since 2023. Allman and Young were elected to the board in 2020. Anderson, Smith, and Viskanta were elected to the board in November 2022.

Viskanta is a policy analyst, and former board trustee for the Encinitas Union School District. Smith is a businesswoman, and former school teacher and administrator. Young is a community volunteer who previously served as chairman of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Allman was former chairman, president, and CEO of Southern California Gas Company at Sempra Energy. Anderson is a software engineer.

Leadership and staff
The president of the board of trustees is Rimga Viskanta. She has served as president since December 2022. Viskanta previously was a member of the Encinitas Union School District board of trustees from 2016 to 2020, where she also served as board president. Dr. Anne Staffieri, former superintendent of the Escondido Union High School District, has served as superintendent since July 2023.

On May 10, 2023, the district announced in a press release that Dr. Anne Staffieri would serve as superintendent pending board approval of her contract beginning July 2023. Dr. Staffieri was superintendent of Escondido Union High School District since 2019. Staffieri succeeds Tina Douglas, associate superintendent of business services, who had served as interim superintendent since April 2022.

Cheryl James-Ward, professor at San Diego State University and former CEO of E3 Civic High School, was hired in November 2021. James-Ward was placed on administrative leave in April 2022 after controversial comments she made about Asian Americans during a board workshop. Board trustees Muir, Allman, and Bronstein voted in the affirmative, while Young voted against it. The board subsequently voted unanimously to terminate her contract on June 26, 2022, effective August 15, 2022, without cause.

The board appointed Lucile Lynch as interim superintendent in May 2021. She served in the role until the board hired James-Ward in November 2021. Lynch was preceded by Robert Haley, who served in the role beginning on November 1, 2018. He resigned in April 2021.

High schools
There are five high schools in the district, including four comprehensive schools and one alternative school. Although officially named academies, there is no official academic or educational difference between San Dieguito and Canyon Crest Academies and Torrey Pines and La Costa Canyon High Schools. SDUHSD uses school choice, which allows any student within the elementary and middle school boundaries to attend any of the four comprehensive high schools.

San Dieguito High School Academy
San Dieguito High School Academy (SDA), formerly San Dieguito Union High School, San Dieguito High School, and San Dieguito Academy, is the district's flagship school. Opening in 1936, the school is located in Encinitas around one mile from the coast. Similar to Canyon Crest Academy, SDHSA uses a semester class schedule, which allows students to take year-long courses in one semester. During the 2020-2021 school year, 2,059 students were enrolled.

Torrey Pines High School
Torrey Pines High School (TPHS) was established in 1974, located in the Del Mar Highlands area of San Diego. Torrey Pines enrolled 2,547 students during the 2020-2021 school year, making it the largest school in the district. It is a traditional high school, using a rotating block schedule with year-long courses. The school's rival is La Costa Canyon High School.

La Costa Canyon High School
La Costa Canyon High School (LCC), located in south Carlsbad, opened in 1996 and is the smallest high school in the district. The district's only International Baccalaureate (IB) World School, La Costa Canyon enrolled 1,834 students during the 2020-2021 school year. It is one of the district's two traditional high schools, using a rotating block schedule. La Costa Canyon is best known for its athletic programs, producing numerous professional sports players. The school's rival is Torrey Pines High School.

Canyon Crest Academy
Canyon Crest Academy (CCA) opened in 2004 in the Carmel Valley area of San Diego. The school uses the semester class schedule similar to San Dieguito Academy. During the 2020-2021 school year, CCA enrolled 2,503 students making it the second largest school in the district. Canyon Crest has been ranked the #1 high school in the state since 2018.

Sunset High School
Sunset High School is the district's alternative high school located in Encinitas.

Middle schools
The San Dieguito Union High School District currently operates five middle schools. Earl Warren Middle School is the district's first middle school located in Solana Beach. Oak Crest Middle School in Encinitas opened in 1957. Diegueño Middle School in Encinitas was established in 1985, located four miles away from La Costa Canyon High School. Carmel Valley Middle School opened in 1999 in the Carmel Valley community of San Diego. Pacific Trails Middle School was built in 2015, a half-mile away from Canyon Crest Academy.

Recent events
March–June 2021
 * On March 19, 2021, Area 5 trustee Kristin Gibson resigned from board, citing personal reasons. The board of trustees would have 60 days to either hold a special election or execute a provisional appointment. On March 29, 2021, the board of trustees voted 3-1 to execute a provisional appointment. Michael Allman, Mo Muir, and Melisse Mossy voted in favor of the process; Katrina Young voted against it.
 * On April 22, 2021, Ty Humes was unanimously appointed to the board of trustees.
 * At the April 27, 2021 special board meeting, president Mo Muir stated that the board accepted superintendent Robert A. Haley's voluntary resignation agreement effective April 30, 2021. The agreement stated he would receive one year's salary and the district would "maintain his health and welfare benefits until April 30, 2022."
 * On April 30, 2021, Lucile Lynch was appointed as interim superintendent in a 4-1 vote. Allman, Humes, Muir, and Mossy voted in favor of the appointment; Young voted against it.

October–November 2021 February 2022 April 2022 May–June 2022 August 2022
 * On June 9, 2021, the district announced that a petition to hold a special election for the Area 5 board seat "was deemed legally sufficient." Humes was then vacated from the board.
 * On October 10, 2021, Cheryl James-Ward was announced as the lone finalist for superintendent. Subsequently, on October 14, 2021, the board voted 3-1 on her contract effective November 1, 2021. Allman, Muir, and Mossy voted in favor; Young voted against it.
 * On November 3, 2021, Julie Bronstein won the Area 5 special election against Humes and a community member.
 * On February 10, 2022, the board selected three final trustee area maps in the 2020 census redistricting process, mandated by the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). Maps 1C, 7, and 8 were chosen. Bronstein and Young voted against Maps 7 and 8, citing gerrymandering. Young motioned to include Map 1C in the final options, which passed unanimously 5-0. The deadline for final map adoption was March 1, 2022.
 * On February 14, 2022, the board of trustees adopted Map 8 in a 3-2 vote. Allman, Muir, and Mossy voted in favor of the map; Bronstein and Young voted against it. Before the maps were adopted, superintendent Cheryl James-Ward indicated she received a letter from San Diego County superintendent of schools Paul Gothold. The letter stated the county board of education could take over the redistricting process if any delay were to occur due to litigation over the maps. Gothold also stated the county was informed that at least one of the maps considered could violate the CVRA. Days later, on February 22, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court by two community members against the district. It claimed that the maps "disenfranchised" people of color and was gerrymandered.
 * On April 4, 2022, the San Diego County Board of Education voted unanimously to take over the trustee area map decision process for SDUHSD.
 * On April 12, 2022, Melisse Mossy resigned from the board of trustees.
 * On April 20, 2022, superintendent Cheryl James-Ward was placed on administrative leave for comments she made about Asian Americans at a diversity, equity and inclusion board workshop on April 11, 2022. The board of trustees voted 3-1. Allman, Bronstein, and Muir voted for placing her on leave; Young voted against it. The next day, the board unanimously appointed Tina Douglas, associate superintendent of business services, as interim superintendent at a special board meeting.
 * On May 22, 2022, an article was published by The San Diego Union-Tribune about text messages between board vice president Michael Allman and superintendent Cheryl James-Ward. The messages were read by community activist Mali Woods-Drake during public comments at the May 17, 2022 board meeting. James-Ward confirmed she sent the texts to Woods-Drake. The exchange was regarding a La Costa Canyon High School teacher's mask enforcement. Allman texted obscene language and profanity to James-Ward, and urged her to fire the teacher and the principal, Reno Medina: "I will out this SOB. End of story. Does he not know, or does he know and ignore? If he does not know, fire Medina. If he know and ignores, fire the teacher.”
 * On June 26, 2022, superintendent Cheryl James-Ward was fired. The board of trustees voted unanimously 4-0 to terminate her contract, without cause, effective August 15, 2022.

November–December 2022
 * On August 25, 2022, the board of trustees unanimously adopted a resolution regarding gun violence prevention written by La Costa Canyon High School student body presidents Andrew and Shane Baum. The resolution advocated for safe gun storage and common sense gun laws. It was the first resolution written by the community in district history.

 * On November 8, 2022, Rimga Viskanta, Jane Lea Smith, and Phan Anderson won election to the board of trustees. Anderson defeated incumbent Julie Bronstein in the Area 5 race.
 * On December 13, 2022, Rimga Viskanta was elected as board president. The board of trustees voted 5-0.

title: San Dieguito Union High School District


text:
Talk:Direct bandgap

Can someone explain what the E-k space / k-vector is? I don't get it. Thanks, --Abdull 12:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Direct bandgap


text: User talk:203.208.88.138

title: User talk:203.208.88.138


text:
USS Saranac

USS Saranac may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Saranac (1814), a brig, built in 1814 and decommissioned in 1818.
 * USS Saranac (1848), a sloop of war, launched in 1848 and wrecked in 1875.
 * USS Saranac (1899), a minelayer, built in 1899, acquired by the Navy in 1917 and decommissioned in 1919.
 * USS Saranac (AO-74), a Type T2-SE-A1 fleet oiler, commissioned in 1943 and decommissioned in 1946.

title: USS Saranac


text:
Euro calculator

A euro calculator is a type of calculator in European countries (see eurozone) that adopted the euro as their official monetary unit. It functions like any other normal calculator, but it also includes a special function which allows one to convert a value expressed in the previously official unit (the peseta in Spain, for example) to the new value in euros, or vice versa. Its use became very popular within the population and commerce of these countries especially during the first few months after adopting the euro.

As so many were produced, they are also found outside the eurozone to help staff with conversions at airports or railway stations where the euro has a strong presence.

title: Euro calculator


text:
Talk:Cheap talk

Category: population genetics
This is an article about game theory. The applications to biology are important, but so are the applications (of game theory in general) to many other subjects. It wouldn't be appropriate to list all the categories relating to those subjects here and in the same way I don't think that this categorisation is appropriate.

I'm open-minded so please prove me wrong if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetep (talk • contribs)

This article may be technically correct, but it seems quite wrong in style for Wikipedia. It is pitched too high and uses too much "academese". How is a layman expected to understand this:

"Consider a game comprising two players, a sender and a receiver. ... Nature chooses the sender's type at the start of the game, but this choice is unobserved by the receiver. The order of play is an action taken by the sender (a message) and then an action taken by the receiver. Crucially in a cheap talk game, the sender's action does not affect the payoff per se, insofar as for a given sender type and a given receiver action, payoffs will be the same regardless of the sender's message."

And please avoid references like "The sender has a non-singleton type space." This would be too abbreviated for an economics paper, and is completely out of place here. FWadel 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe cheap talk is costless but rather the cost is low enough that it does not prevent communication from occurring. Although I can't find a source for this one obvious cost would be oppurtunity cost. Mjakubowski (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section
I have deleted a section as a partial cleanup. Placing this diff here if anyone wants to retrieve anything from it. This section was tagged for cleanup since 2006. M W ℳ 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * bozln 136.232.79.206 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Cabrales's comment on this article
Dr. Cabrales has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"This is pretty good, but the application section is too short, and there are many more papers one could cite usefully."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cabrales has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

 * Reference : Antonio Cabrales & Piero Gottardi, 2008. "Markets for information : of inefficient firewalls and efficient monopolies," Economics Working Papers we080201, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economia.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Schlag's comment on this article
Dr. Schlag has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"This entry is really about the seminal Crawford and Sobel (1982), for a general article on cheap talk the entry should contain also a brief overview of the literature on cheap talk. I would explicitly mention Farrell and Rabin (1996) as good reading. Explicit inclusion of Aumann's Stag Hunt could give a nice flavor of the literature on complete information.

Crawford and Sobel (1982) is about a sender receiver game in which the sender has private information and only the receiver makes a choice. There is also a literature on cheap talk in games with complete information. This is a different model, not an application of Crawford and Sobel (1982) as one might infer by the brief discussion in the "Applications" section.

The central obstacle in this literature is the existence of the babbling equilbrium. Adding cheap talk simply generates more predictions and we have no real understanding of communication, even in the Crawford and Sobel model. Several approaches have been suggested to circumvent this problem: including explicit communication protocols (Rabin, 1994), neologisms (Matthews et al., 1991), evolution (Demichelis and Weibull, 2008, Hurkens and Schlag, 2003), commuicative sequential equilibrium (Zultan, 2013), credible communication (Schlag and Vida, 2016).

Minor comments on the exposition: It is not true in CS 1982) that "When interests are aligned, then information is fully disclosed", as the babbling equilbrium always exists.

References: Demichelis, S., and J.W. Weibull (2008), "Language, Meaning, and Games: A Model of Communication, Coordination, and Evolution", American Economic Review 98, 1292-1311. Hurkens, S., and K.H. Schlag (2003), "Evolutionary Insights on the Willingness to Communicate", International Journal of Game Theory 31, 511-526. Matthews, S.A, M. Okuno-Fujiwara, and A. Postlewaite (1991), "Refining Cheap-Talk Equilibria", Journal of Economic Theory 55, 247-273. M. Rabin (1994), "A Model of Pre-Game Communication", Journal of Economic Theory 63, 370-391. Schlag, K.H., and Peter Vida (2016), Believing When Credible: Talking About Future Intentions and Past Actions, Mimeo, University of Vienna. Zultan, R. (2013), "Timing of Messages and the Aumann Conjecture: a Multiple-Selves Approach", International Journal of Game Theory 42, 789-800."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Schlag has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

 * Reference : Schlag, Karl H. & Vida, Peter, 2013. "Commitments, Intentions, Truth and Nash Equilibria," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 438, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Both Crawford and Sobel now have Wikipedia pages
Both Crawford and Sobel now have Wikipedia pages, which it would be good to link this page to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissAngieM (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. Caius G. (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cheap talk