Talk:Chagai-I

message: These gifted scientists and engineers along with a highly-dedicated team worked logically and economically to design, produce and test an extremely rugged device for the nation which enable the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from strength to strength. By the grace of Almighty Allah, the PAEC as an organization has proven to be the pride of the Pakistani nation.
I don't think this kind of self-congratulation should be on wikipedia.
Also, the last part of the article is between quotes but there is no reference.  Monkeyget 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be classified as vandalism even if it's not it would not be neutral.  The referance can be sorted out.  I'll try and find one. LOTRrules (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The image :Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg

message: The image :File:Cha1 lrg.jpg is added. So, If I have violated the Wikipedia's policy on Uploading the Image. I would suggest the image must be deleted because I do hold the copy rights of the image.
I have tried my best uploading the photo. I'm not an author of the photo nor I hold the copy rights of the image. It is a result of the research work of Carey Sublette's article "Pakistan Nuclear Weapon Program: 1998 The year of testing. I am also providing the link "http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html". The material was prepared by the Carey Sublette and it was prepared using materials provided by the Indian, Pakistani, and United States governments, by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Times of India News Service, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Associated Press of Pakistan, the Press Trust of India, Science News, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Nuclear Weapons Archive.
The image is also used publically by the Pakistan's Geo TV. This is the same image that is been uploaded. There are two links: the first link is in the Urdu Language. The second link is in the English Language. 
*May 28 (in Urdu) 
*Nation observing Youm-e-Takbeer today  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.198.147 (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Snap Shot of the Test Teams

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Can you specify what phrases are using weasel words? If there aren't specifics I'll revert the tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel? Specify. 

message: the yield figure of both the chagai tests have been rejected by independent and western scholars , no data Support pakistan claim, references are provided of both wallace and franks as well as nuclear scientists journal who called the pakistan test only partially.  The sources which reject pakistan claim also proves that main point of these claims was to match Indian claims(which are themselves contested).122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever the correct figures are, you don't need to edit war over multiple articles and hop IPs to going that content in. You need to revert your own edits and discuss the content here. As far as the content goes, the only organizations which actually measured the yields were Pakistani. The rejection by western sources who never measured anything is a redflag on its own. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Changing IPs, canvassing other users, making personal attacks is not the way to get content in. You need to discuss it on talk page. Many of your edits on other articles were simply vandalism. Your above claims are still disputed. for which you have given me no explanation. A source that has no idea about that yield can not be taken as a reliable source at all. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous content was cited in the body as well. But then again... simply addition and personal attacks don't make a valid reasons. Don't see how the IP is correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He is correct because Pakistan lied about total yield results. The yields were in the 2-15kt range. A simple search can show you this.  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear weapons and nonproliferation: a reference handbook "Pakistan responds by conducting five nuclear weapon tests on May 28 in the Chagai Hills with an announced yield of 40–45 kilotons and an estimated yield of 6–13 kilotons." p149. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And how did that source get to measure the yields? That is an assumption. No reliable source can reliably state this except the official sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seismic records of course. I am appalled you would not know something so basic about the subject and arbitrarily declare the sources as unreliable. Here,  bring yourself up to speed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know the subject, but are such details given by the sources? Your last source is giving some concepts, but we are talking about these yields here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who says Seismic records are an unreliable way to gauge total yield results knows nothing about the subject. The sources all agree that both Pakistan and India lied outrageously about the total yield results. The "official" figures do not belong in the infobox, they need to be in the body of the article along with the actual yield results. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you on that. Whether or not official figures are correct the right solution would be to add the details by independent sources in a table in the body in list form along with the official details. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Read WP:INDENT, you are entirely correct in the yield estimates and as I have said the article needs to reflect this fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: yield figure

message: you are invited here to discuss any issues you have with the content of this page, any reverts I have done of your edits, and any of my edits to it which you have been reverting. I also invite  here as they are heavily involved too. 220 of Borg 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: :::::::The picture in question does seem to be on the CTBTO page here, labelled  as being where the test took place. Found via a Google image search. 220 of Borg 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ⊕ Related video on that page, and here on YouTube. 220 of Borg 10:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

text: and  - Thanks for the leg work. If a caption can be agreed on, it might be reasonable to add back the image. I propose that "Dust raised by the nuclear test on Koh Kambaran in the Ras Koh mountains on 28 May 1998" would work as a caption. Given both the CTBTO and the Sublette captions, this leaves open and appropriately undefined the issue of whether the dust is mainly earth, rock, snow, or an admixture of these. Is this satisfactory? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a 'definitive' sourced, caption (If such exists) something that is suitably vague suits me. Too much detail may fall into  'original research'. 220 of Borg 04:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I will also modify the sourcing statement on the Wikipedia upload page. I will add CTBTO to Sublette, and will remove the deadlink pointing to Pakistan Military Consortium. As you point out, this sourcing is not definitive. I also propose that the article general text, rather than the caption, encompass a brief mention of "a huge, thick cloud of beige dust enveloped the mountain" as per the Khan page 281 reference above. I will make these modifications in a day or two. I am gnoming some basic things first. Change anything you wish as I chip away at this. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish. PB hasn't edited in about 9 days. AGF, but maybe they are 'feeling the heat'. (Or using another account??) 220 of Borg 04:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  After further thought, I am not going to add back the picture. As you state, the sourcing is unclear, as is the copyright status, despite use by CTBTO. More to the point, I don't think the image adds anything of encyclopedic substance to the article. Adding the CTBTO page as a reference better meets the objective. Still chipping away at the page from time to time. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , as you wish, I've lost a bit of on interest in this page, edit warring tends to do that to me. :-/  220 of Borg 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chagai-I. 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/20100531143414/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=105606 to http://thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=105606
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chagai-I. 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/20120401181303/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/june/chagai.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/june/chagai.htm
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) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chagai-I. 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/20081216135457/http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2003_files/no_2/article/7a.htm to http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2003_files/no_2/article/7a.htm
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) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chagai-I. 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/20121008165905/http://www.geo.tv/5-28-2009/42960.htm to http://www.geo.tv/5-28-2009/42960.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626133304/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/07-Sep-2004/pakistan-ends-15-year-ties-with-imf to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/07-Sep-2004/pakistan-ends-15-year-ties-with-imf
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) 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)