This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chagai-I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 28, 2008, May 28, 2011, May 28, 2016, May 28, 2017, and May 28, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I added more valid and neutral informations. All the information based on the true facts borrowed from the different websites controlled by the different organizations. I tried my best to make this page more neutral. Most of the information has been taken from following websites:
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
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) 81.137.222.172 ( talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Controversy section provides no sources at all! Its simple vandalism.
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.
An image used in this article,
File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
You cant reject the same sources which contest Indian claims, the same sources put Pakistan yield to be even much more less than indian test and also give the potential reason that it was to MATCH THE INDIAN YIELD, and to make their people proud
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html
you have to boost your nuclear science knowledge, both the claims of chagai-1 and chagai-2 have been contested by western seismologists similar to indian tests now you can say that Western experts have anti-asian views but you have to include their view point as well. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration but thats the world order, we asians always look towards west for confirmation and these same sources have been quoted in the indian tests section as well, even the chinese tests were questioned and all these sources have been mentioned reason all these are well known nuclear sources and you cannot reject all this. I am not saying that WESTERN SOURCES ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN PAKISTANI SOURCES but only mentioning that WESTERN SOURCES have contested pakistani claims. I am not judging pakistani and western sources , i am just mentioning the western sources.
122.161.31.230 (
talk)
09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
look man your ranting will not change, i agree that western sources try to downplay ASIAN's in almost every field , but its our fault not theirs, we always looked towards them for this. The average figure of nuclearweapon archive site is available from all sources.It gives claimed yield and the yield which they think was real one. The same site is referenced on indian tests. They give Pokhra-1 8Kt whereas India claimed 20Kt similarly according to them shakti 1 was 30kt and not 45 kt.
122.161.135.47 (
talk)
15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Note i never commented about MERIT OF PAKISTANI OR WESTERN SOURCES, i only mentioned it, the same sources are mentioned in Indian tests as well. It only gives an average.
122.161.135.47 (
talk)
15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Test: Shakti I Time: 15:47:07 11 May 1998 (IST); 10:17:07 UCT (Indian Government), 10:13:42 UCT (USGS) Location: Pokhran, Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India 27.0716 deg N, 71.7612 deg E Test Height and Type: Underground, more than -200 m Yield: 30 kt est. (22-30 kt possible range; 43-45 kt claimed)
Indian sources claimed has been tone down very much, look their will be some sources which QUOTE THE YIELD VERY LOW, their will be some sources which will QUOTE VERY HIGH YIELD , but their will be always a MEDIAN OR AN AVERAGE and that is what is written on this page, when seismic data are read it is assumed that its Upper Bound is more probable therefore if the figure for pakistan is 2-10Kt then 9-10Kt will be accepted similarly Shakti-1 is assumed 22-32Kt and therefore 30Kt is considered more reliable. The claimed yield of BARC was 45Kt which is not accepted by many. 122.161.135.47 ( talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This debate should comes to end now. Calculating exact, precise yields are not easy; in fact, they are very hard to determined even in control environment. That's what makes mathematics fun. Chagai-I tests were just a show to prove Pakistan's scientific achievements as well as the nuclear deterrence. Chagai-I had same purpose as of the "Trinity test" in 1945. There are many multiple ways yields can be determined. They can be calculate based on blast waves, the flash of the weapon, gravitational senses, gravimetry forces, and many other ways that the governments intended to hide the true nature of this scientific nature. Second, World prominent mathematician John Von Nuemann, conduct rough calculation of the yield of the Trinity test by dropping small pieces of paper in the air and measuring at how far they were moved by the shock wave of the explosion. Western scientists made bets on calculating the precise yield, and in the article, the calculations were easy as its seem.
I understand Western sources are more reliable than Pakistan sources but Western scientists were not available at the time of the tests. Yields are predicted when, immediately the tests are conducted, it is against the scientific wisdom to calculate yields after tests have been conducted, then receive data, and then approximate the yields (this is something you learn in sciences classes). It is advisable to accept Pakistan's data as of current but do not omit the Western claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.26.162 ( talk) 06:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
PeerBaba ( talk · contribs) 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 FeatherPluma ( talk · contribs) here as they are heavily involved too. 220 of Borg 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
request for a proper explanation
plan of action
Thank you for your kind consideration. FeatherPluma ( talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
“ | Snowy mountains raised above as the chain reaction took place, 32ms after the detonation. | ” |
“ | Snow displaced from the mountainside by the nuclear explosion | ” |
“ | Snow displaced from the mountainside 32 ms after the test explosion. | ” |
“ | Clouds of snow on the mountainside thrown up by the test explosion. | ” |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chagai-I. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chagai-I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 28, 2008, May 28, 2011, May 28, 2016, May 28, 2017, and May 28, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I added more valid and neutral informations. All the information based on the true facts borrowed from the different websites controlled by the different organizations. I tried my best to make this page more neutral. Most of the information has been taken from following websites:
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
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) 81.137.222.172 ( talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Controversy section provides no sources at all! Its simple vandalism.
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.
An image used in this article,
File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
You cant reject the same sources which contest Indian claims, the same sources put Pakistan yield to be even much more less than indian test and also give the potential reason that it was to MATCH THE INDIAN YIELD, and to make their people proud
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html
you have to boost your nuclear science knowledge, both the claims of chagai-1 and chagai-2 have been contested by western seismologists similar to indian tests now you can say that Western experts have anti-asian views but you have to include their view point as well. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration but thats the world order, we asians always look towards west for confirmation and these same sources have been quoted in the indian tests section as well, even the chinese tests were questioned and all these sources have been mentioned reason all these are well known nuclear sources and you cannot reject all this. I am not saying that WESTERN SOURCES ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN PAKISTANI SOURCES but only mentioning that WESTERN SOURCES have contested pakistani claims. I am not judging pakistani and western sources , i am just mentioning the western sources.
122.161.31.230 (
talk)
09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature. 122.161.31.230 ( talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
look man your ranting will not change, i agree that western sources try to downplay ASIAN's in almost every field , but its our fault not theirs, we always looked towards them for this. The average figure of nuclearweapon archive site is available from all sources.It gives claimed yield and the yield which they think was real one. The same site is referenced on indian tests. They give Pokhra-1 8Kt whereas India claimed 20Kt similarly according to them shakti 1 was 30kt and not 45 kt.
122.161.135.47 (
talk)
15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Note i never commented about MERIT OF PAKISTANI OR WESTERN SOURCES, i only mentioned it, the same sources are mentioned in Indian tests as well. It only gives an average.
122.161.135.47 (
talk)
15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Test: Shakti I Time: 15:47:07 11 May 1998 (IST); 10:17:07 UCT (Indian Government), 10:13:42 UCT (USGS) Location: Pokhran, Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India 27.0716 deg N, 71.7612 deg E Test Height and Type: Underground, more than -200 m Yield: 30 kt est. (22-30 kt possible range; 43-45 kt claimed)
Indian sources claimed has been tone down very much, look their will be some sources which QUOTE THE YIELD VERY LOW, their will be some sources which will QUOTE VERY HIGH YIELD , but their will be always a MEDIAN OR AN AVERAGE and that is what is written on this page, when seismic data are read it is assumed that its Upper Bound is more probable therefore if the figure for pakistan is 2-10Kt then 9-10Kt will be accepted similarly Shakti-1 is assumed 22-32Kt and therefore 30Kt is considered more reliable. The claimed yield of BARC was 45Kt which is not accepted by many. 122.161.135.47 ( talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This debate should comes to end now. Calculating exact, precise yields are not easy; in fact, they are very hard to determined even in control environment. That's what makes mathematics fun. Chagai-I tests were just a show to prove Pakistan's scientific achievements as well as the nuclear deterrence. Chagai-I had same purpose as of the "Trinity test" in 1945. There are many multiple ways yields can be determined. They can be calculate based on blast waves, the flash of the weapon, gravitational senses, gravimetry forces, and many other ways that the governments intended to hide the true nature of this scientific nature. Second, World prominent mathematician John Von Nuemann, conduct rough calculation of the yield of the Trinity test by dropping small pieces of paper in the air and measuring at how far they were moved by the shock wave of the explosion. Western scientists made bets on calculating the precise yield, and in the article, the calculations were easy as its seem.
I understand Western sources are more reliable than Pakistan sources but Western scientists were not available at the time of the tests. Yields are predicted when, immediately the tests are conducted, it is against the scientific wisdom to calculate yields after tests have been conducted, then receive data, and then approximate the yields (this is something you learn in sciences classes). It is advisable to accept Pakistan's data as of current but do not omit the Western claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.26.162 ( talk) 06:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
PeerBaba ( talk · contribs) 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 FeatherPluma ( talk · contribs) here as they are heavily involved too. 220 of Borg 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
request for a proper explanation
plan of action
Thank you for your kind consideration. FeatherPluma ( talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
“ | Snowy mountains raised above as the chain reaction took place, 32ms after the detonation. | ” |
“ | Snow displaced from the mountainside by the nuclear explosion | ” |
“ | Snow displaced from the mountainside 32 ms after the test explosion. | ” |
“ | Clouds of snow on the mountainside thrown up by the test explosion. | ” |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chagai-I. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)