Jump to content

Talk:Pokhran-II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling

[edit]

Is it Pokhran or Pokharan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.119.237 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the CIA was fooled.

[edit]

I have an article about how the CIA was fooled. I will try to get the online version of it. That article contains a lot of information on the condcution of the test and how the world was kept unknown about this test. Chanakyathegreat 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Reason: [1]. --Bhadani 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dust Cloud Photo

[edit]

The caption of the dust cloud photo is incorrect. Incidentally this photo was used on the cover of George Perkovich's book. The photograph was taken from the Indian Air Force's Bombing Range 2 at Pohkaran, not the nuclear test site. The clouds are conventional explosions from a firepower demonstration. The air target bullseye can be seen in the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.227.169 (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC) The video of that particular target can be seen here during VayuShakti-1999 firepower demo at the IAF bombing range #2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47CSHFURYEw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.225.5 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article at the time of the above comment contained the image File:Shakti-exp.jpg which, from the caption "A cloud of dust rises above the test shafts at the Pokhran range during Opearation Shakti", which is presumably the one mentioned above. The image was removed from this page on 10 October 2007 and deleted on 26 November 2007 for lacking licensing information. -- ToET 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

I have rolled back the latest edit as the last war (Kargil War) was fought without any formal declaration of war as defined and recognized under international law by the warring nations. --Bhadani (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be rewritten

[edit]

"The most vehement reaction to India's nuclear test was Pakistan's. Pakistan was the nation whose security would be most affected by India's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan perceived (and still perceives) India as a threat to its existence. India and Pakistan had three wars with each other. Great ire was raised in Pakistan which issued a severe statement blaming India for instigating a nuclear arms race in the region. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif vowed that his country would give a suitable reply to the Indians. Pakistan wished to exploit the world's negative reaction to the Indian tests. It chose to highlight the problem of Kashmir and portray India as an aggressive and expansionist state that wished to acquire nuclear weapons to intimidate Pakistan and threaten it militarily. Nawaz Sharif declared that India which was headed by a Hindu nationalist government was bent upon undoing Pakistan and exerting its hegemony throughout South Asia from Afghanistan to Myanmar. Envoys were dispatched to various world capitals to highlight Pakistan's stand and win the world's support and sympathy for Pakistan. The Pakistani public were also of the opinion that their country had to carry out similar tests in order to allay the fears in the minds of the people about India."

This paragram IMHO should be rewritten in a more professional structure, should also tone down the nationalist sentiments... 60.54.58.91 12:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Agreed. The whole article is biased, and should be tagged as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.22.218 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced and POV

[edit]
  • This article requires reliable, third party sources to back-up its claims. Please consider quoting sources.
  • The article contains POV, both in the former and the latter half.

Please cite sources and copyedit the article to ensure that it is written in a clear, coherent tone with a neutral point of view, so speaks rohith. 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The text does not talk about India wanting a seat in the security council and said to sign the npt, if they do get one. Also in 1971 the US employed the USS Enterprise with Nuclear weapons on board to the gulf of bengalen and India saw this as a threat. sadly i do not have the time to edit including references, but it can be found in many scholarly books that both things were a big part of it.176.240.201.156 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapons deployment by the U.S. is not public information, so such sources would only be speculation.104.169.22.138 (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio

[edit]

I am concerned that some of the sentences in the (unreferenced) Devices section have been directly copied from [2] -- Limulus (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ref that may help; see "Cracking The Pokhran Tests" section. -- Limulus (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Pandit (28 Aug 2009). "Forces gung-ho on N-arsenal". The Times Of India. Retrieved 20 July 2012.

Removed the copyright violations. Added refs. Thanks for noticing those. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; this article needs some TLC :( --Limulus (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just identified that the entire "Production and preparation of devices" section was a copyvio of [3] tagged as such for now as per WP:Copyright violations -- Limulus (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section in its current form is not a copyright violation. I have made wide changes in the structure and language. Certain info like a list of parts and devices and the chronology of the event has to be maintained. That is part of the reporting. And please do not add comments and sign in the article. Use the talk page for discussions and if possible help me out in removing the copyright violations. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I did not sign the copyvio notice directly, it was automatically done by the template. I added the template because WP:Copyright violations instructed that I should do so. -- Limulus (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still concerned that the close paraphrasing of the section has not eliminated the copyvio problem; it probably should be rewritten from scratch. -- Limulus (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Devices and Production sections mentioned above appear to have been added by an anon user [4] mostly in three edits on 19 July 2007: [5] [6] [7] -- Limulus (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Detonation" section is a copyvio of NWA. -- Limulus (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: copied in by *the same* anon user in a 28 July 2007 edit: [8] -- Limulus (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Preparations for the test" is a copyvio of a wire article that has been mirrored on [9] -- Limulus (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[10] suggests that it was originally from MSNBC -- Limulus (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: added by User:Roghov mostly in this 18 July 2007 edit: [11]
Roghov also added the unreferenced "test team" section [12] which appears to (again) be pretty much directly copied from NWA without attribution :/ -- Limulus (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Between both our edits, have we solved the problem of copyright violations, or are there more sections that require out attention? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now finished flagging everything in the article that needs attribution; there's a bit of work ahead to do. -- Limulus (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[note: comment split here into Non-free images section -- Limulus (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)] Thanks for your cooperation in making this a better article, and i agree that more work has to be done here. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

[edit]

I am also now concerned about the use of non-free images (which are basically from NWA anyway). I don't think we can justify a gallery as has been done and unless you object, I think it should be removed. -- Limulus (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[note: comment split here from Possible copyvio section -- Limulus (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)] If you think the images have copyright problems, you can first mark them as such, or request an administrator to look into them. Or we can add the images in the gallery to relevant sections in the article. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The three images in the article (one used in the lede and again in the gallery) are all non-free. There is also File:ShaktiBomb.jpg used e.g. in India and weapons of mass destruction which *should* also be in this article if it's going to be used in Wikipedia! :) All of these have counterparts conspicuously featured in the NWA ref, so there is no major loss if we don't want to use them. I propose either removing all the current ones and switching to ShaktiBomb.jpg, or keeping the one in the lede and using ShaktiBomb.jpg in the Devices section. Comments? -- Limulus (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the images exist on the commons or wikipedia, then there is no excuse not to use them on an article. Non free images may be used on articles. If they violate copyrights, then they must be removed from commons. So either start the removal process, or let them be on the article and ask an admin to look into it. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm explaining myself well, sorry. Your reasoning is actually a bit turned around; non-free content necessarily violates copyright unless it can be justified based on "fair use" (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Non-free_materials_and_special_requirements) The commons is only for free content and thus does not accept non-free images: [13] Here on EN Wikipedia they do allow non-free content, BUT its use needs to be justified, as previously stated (though note that non-free media use is discouraged: Wikipedia:NFCC#Policy). If a non-free image isn't used anymore it gets deleted automatically after a week or so (Wikipedia:CSD#F5). -- Limulus (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I just noticed this policy about non-free media in galleries, which applies to this article: WP:NFTABLE (it's "usually unacceptable"). I'm going to remove the gallery, as tiny thumbnails of rubble don't really enhance the article for me :) -- Limulus (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the tests -international - Pakistan

[edit]

the same content was mentioned twice though this is not the main article on Pakistan's nuclear tests. Hence i consider it correct to mention it only once at the appropriate subsection which is "Reactions to the tests -international - Pakistan" dBigXray (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong usage of the word Shakti and relating it to Hinduism.

[edit]

'Shakti' is a word that is of Indian origin and means might or power. It has no religious context and it would be very inappropriate to use it in the manner herein.

Please make appropriate changes. ____________

On 18 May 1974, India exploded its first nuclear device in an operation code named Smiling Buddha (Pokhran-I). After about a quarter century, on 11 May 1998, Operation Shakti (Pokhran-II) was carried out; Shakti was the codename for the nuclear devices that were detonated. The term Shakti (Hindi: शक्ति) refers to the cosmic energy of Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshusachi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yield?

[edit]

This article has little discussion of the yield of Shakti , saying only "Shakti I – A thermonuclear device yielding 56 kt, but designed for up to 200 kt". Compare that to [14]] which says "The yield of India's hydrogen bomb remains highly debatable among the Indian science community and the international scholars...". That latter seems more reliable; the ref given here for 56 kt (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html) leads to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html which indicates considerable disagreement William M. Connolley (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William M. Connolley, I think the word 56 was as a result of un-cited changes which have now been reversed to 45 which was claimed value form India. You can add a separate section to the article based on the resources and indicate that there was a disagreement about the actual yield and other analysts think differently. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie (reliable source) makes clear arguments that the Shakti I test failed, and explains why. It even says: "late in 2009, a group of senior Indian nuclear scientists, including many who were actively involved in the weapons program, called upon their government to conduct an “in-depth analysis of our real capabilities,” given “the grave situation we are in regarding our Thermonuclear (H-bomb) capability,” with an eye to undertaking “resolute, speedy and comprehensive corrective action.”"

https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/07/18/india-pub-87397

Theeurocrat (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pokhran-II. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pokhran-II. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 11:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pokhran-II&oldid=1209795306"