Talk:Ghauri (missile)

Title of article

I propose changing the title of the article from "Ghauri (missile)" to "Ghauri missile" or "Ghauri ballistic missile". I prefer "Ghauri missile" as it is simple and straight forward. Readers can find out the type of missile by reading the article. The bracket does not look nice in the title.{Raza0007 | Talk} 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead and make the change. Anybody who disagrees can discuss here. Hj108 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could not move the page as a page titled "Ghauri missile" already exists. It is just a redirect page but as long as the page exists I can not move to it. Need an administrator for this. Do you know anyone?{Raza0007 | Talk} 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I want someone to change Al-Khalid tank to Al-Khalid MBT as well because Al-Khalid MBT already exists. I say just leave it for now, if somebody searches for "Ghauri missile" it will redirect to this page anyway. Hj108 (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. We can leave it for now. As for Al-Khalid, I seem to recall a similar discussion about 1.5 years ago. It was decided to change the name to Al-Khalid tank instead of Al-Khalid MBT. See the discussion entry for Al-Khalid. Michael, was the one who did that and I think he is an administrator.{Raza0007 | Talk} 12:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking on his talk page that Ghauri and Al-Khalid are moved. Ghauri is a missile and Al-Khalid is an MBT.Hj108 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the article

Cleaned up the article and removed unnecessary information. Added Ghauri Pic and new external links. Raza0007 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material removed

I have removed the following material as it is a direct copy of the text at Global Security.org, which is copyrighted material. Josh 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

To user Wlmg,

You are right, there should be a discussion before removing a whole section from an article. But by this same token, there should have been a discussion before adding a whole section to an article. This section was unilaterally added about 2 months ago by somebody, without any discussion, and with a claim that it adds a neutral point of view. However, this section is not neutral, it is highly biased, is political in nature and has nothing to do with this Pakistan missile. So, the proper thing to do is to have a discussion first and only then think about adding such one sided and controversial sections to articles. Raza0007 (Talk) 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe a single source merits a whole section. Nevertheless the source is the Associated Press. Perhaps one line about this controversy would fit better in the operational history section. Wlmg (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding a well-sourced and directly related material does not need to be discussed. On the contrary, removing a sourced material without any prior discussion is in contradiction with the wikipedia guidelines. User:Raza0007 who actually criticized the addition, removed the whole section without even discussing it first. [1]

To cover the naming of the missile as "Ghauri" and to present the "official" criticisms that were raised by another country (i.e. Afghanistan), I added that section. It is completely in agreement with WK:NPOV where it says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". I don't see any point in removing it: the point discussed in that section is completely neutral and is based on a reliable source i.e. Associated Press. Wikipedia is not a place to promote the military campaign of a country, and where the users could remove any point which undermines and which criticizes the action of the country to which they belong to. I'll re-add that section. Ariana (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310, first you need to re-read WK:NPOV. The section you have added would have been compliant with NPOV only if there was already an allegation present against Afghanistan. Since there was none, by adding the criticism section, you have in fact violated NPOV guidelines.

There was no controversy, this was just a one off mud slinging statement for an Afghan govt official against Pakistan, one among many during that time period. Pakistan did not respond and the Afghan govt did not follow up. So, just one political statement does not merit mention.

Under international law, no country can copyright people. This allegation has no legal standing.

Pakistan is a sovereign state and does not need permission from Afghan govt before doing anything.

This is a missile related article and is not a platform for airing Afghan grievances against Pakistan. If you want to mention this start another article. I will not allow this entire section (which is biased and politically motivated) to ruin an encyclopedic article about a ballistic missile. If you want to escalate this be my guest.Raza0007 (Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to judge whether the concern raised by the government of Afghanistan has legal standing or not. We, as wikipedians, can just add a valuable information which has been published by at least one reliable source, per WK:NPOV and WK:NOR. The Associated Press is a reliable source here. An "official" letter from the Ministry of a country represents the "official viewpoing of that government".

Read back your response; it is you who is being biased and partial in this case and you are just trying to support Pakistan's position: "Pakistan is a sovereign state and does not need permission from Afghan govt before doing anything." <-- YOUR OWN WORDS.

The criticism is totally relevant; it is related to the naming of the missile. In the introduction of the article, it mentions how the missile has been named and what it refers to ("The missile is named after Sultan Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri, the 12th century Muslim invader and ruler of India, while the "Hatf" designation originates from the name of the sword/lance of Prophet Muhammad."). If you are calling the criticism over the naming of the missile to be irrelevent, then remove the above sentence from the intro as well !!! so that there wouldn't be any mentioning of the "Ghauri" meaning or reference. That's how a NPOV should be !!! Plus, the tone used in that paragraph is completely impartial and in agreement with encyclopedic style of writing.

Please present your points logically instead of blindly calling it to be biased and politically motivated. And please don't revert back the article until the discussion is reached to an agreement. Ariana (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The pakastan and India love to fight. They call eachother names. They like to insult. This is nothing new. If its in the news why not put it in encyclpaedia. Afganistan is angry too they fight everyone from Alaxander the great to George Bush. If they are angry at pakastan then put that in encyclpaedia too. It is only words noone gets hurt yet.24.215.221.60 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not the place for such type of political tensions, nationalistic feelings and/or ethnic clashes; except for the points which are relevant to the article and are supported by reliable sources. If the case of naming missiles were the other way around, I mean if Pakistan had criticized Afghanistan's naming of missiles after Pakistani rulers (just an example), I would have supported the inclusion of such a criticism. Ariana (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This part of the section: "In India, the naming of Pakistan's missiles after invaders who caused mayhem and destruction is seen as deliberately provocative. Ahmed Shah Abdali, Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor, after whom these missiles are named all invaded India at various times during the last millennium." appears to contain weasel words. Is there a source for this, or is it original research? Wlmg (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310, can you confirm that the Govt. of Afghanistan officially complained to the Govt. of Pakistan, as here is a BBC article where Pakistan govt spokeswoman, though acknowledging the letter, clearly states that Pakistan has not received any official request from Afghan authorities.

Also can you also explain why this merits a whole separate section on this page?Raza0007 (Talk) 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The last time the section was deleted I included the reference about Afghanistan's 2006 protest in the operational history section. I reduced the section's content to one sentence Here It's still there. I vote no on this single reference meriting its own section. If someone is more interested in the details of the naming controversy they can look at the AP source. Wlmg (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wlmg, I am okay with your edit. However there is a confusion whether it was an official complaint from Govt. of Afghanistan or just a letter sent by the Afghan information minister and if it was an official complaint, why was it not followed up. As it appears, after this media interview dated 22nd Feb 2006, the Afghan side has not raised this issue again. Raza0007 (Talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok this really seems like a tempest in a teapot. Whatever happened wasn't taken seriously by Pakistan. Here is yet another source delving deeper into the issue. As far as i can figure out someone in Afghanistan was insulted (why this took 8-years from the missile's introduction who knows?) that Pakistan had appropriated the name Ghauri to answer a previous insult from India. Dare I say this Pakastani publication finds the whole thing funny WORD FOR WORD: Their Prithvi our Ghauri —Khaled AhmedWlmg (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This just appears to be a humorous article and I sincerely doubt it can pass wikipedia's standard of a credible source. The author apparently finds all of this hilarious and most of the article is actually his own take on the subject. Raza0007 (Talk) 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@User:Wlmg: The sentence you mentioned was not added by me. It was added by an IP address, and I even removed his last sentence which said that the burnt of their invasions is borne by Pakistan.

@User:Raza0007: There are two sources (now the BBC which you provided) which confirm that the Afghan Minister of Culture and Information sent an official letter to the Pakistan government. Full stop, that's what we are concerned here with. Now, when Pakistan denies receiving any letter, that's another issue. In politics, each side plays such type of games. And neither are we concerned why Afghanistan did not make an international legal follow up on this issue. That's not our problem, we don't have to dig out the reasons and solve the political games played between the two countries. We just have to mention what has been reported by the media, that's all.

Of course, I don't insist on putting it on a "single" section. You can move the content to another place, where appropriate. In my point of view, adding the following paragraph anywhere in the article will be largely enough: "Pakistan's naming of its missiles after the Abdali, Ghaznavid and Ghorid rulers was criticized by the Afghan government in 2006. It accused the Government of Pakistan for naming lethal ballistic missiles and other weaponry after Afghan kings and rulers, arguing that "their names should be bracketed with academic, cultural and peace-promoting institutions, not with tools of destruction and killing"." Now you can add it wherever you like to. Thanks. Ariana (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana, this issue does not merit so many lines. 1 or 2 line statement with attached references would do. Creating a whole section or writing a whole paragraph on this distracts readers from a ballistic missile related article to politics. This was not a major controversy. This issue was raised for just "one day" 4 years ago and has not been raised since then. You are making something out of nothing. Let me paraphrase the issue. On 19th Feb 2006, Pakistan conducted a test of Abdali missile (BBC link here), after hearing about yet another missile named after an Afghan personality, the Afghan Information Minister Sayed Makhdum Rahin blew a fuse and conducted a press briefing on 22nd Feb 2006, saying that he had sent an official letter to Pakistan to not name missiles on Afghan personalities. On 23rd Feb 2006, Pakistan declined receiving an official request from the Govt. of Afghanistan (BBC article here) and that was that. This issue has been dead for 4 years. By adding so many lines on this issue here, misleads readers that this is or was a major controversy. Now, you might obviously feel that it was a major controversy but that is your personal opinion. If you can quote me some follow up articles, which would prove it was a major issue, you may write a whole paragraph on it, but if you are unable to do so, more than 2 line will not be justified. I am okay with user User:Wlmg following addition: "In 2006 the Afghani government sent an official complaint to Pakistan that they found the missile's name offensive to their cultural sensitivities." as long as the "Afghani government" is changed to "Afghan information minister". Raza0007 (Talk) 13:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural sensitivities" portrays completely another meaning, and can be just a self-understanding of a wikipedia editor of what has been reported in the media (Original research?); I don't agree with that. What I wrote is also a 2 line statement, it's not a whole paragraph !!! Let me again copy it for you in the following paragraph, so that you can better view the number of lines:

"Pakistan's naming of its missiles after the Abdali, Ghaznavid and Ghorid rulers was criticized by the Afghan government in 2006. It accused the Government of Pakistan for naming lethal ballistic missiles and other weaponry after Afghan kings and rulers, arguing that "their names should be bracketed with academic, cultural and peace-promoting institutions, not with tools of destruction and killing"."

Two lines only (!!) as you said, or more precisely 1,5 lines. It's the most shortened resumé of what has been reported in the media. I have added nothing from my side - not even a single additional word - and is a direct report from the news agencies' and the official Afghan letter. If anyone wanted to go further into the details, they can refer to the two sources: AP and BBC. And I'm not even insisting on keeping it in a whole section, you can add it wherever you'd like to. I think this should be acceptable for both parties. Ariana (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To make the sentence even more shorter:

'"In 2006, the Afghan government criticized Pakistan for naming its lethal ballistic missiles and other weaponry after Afghan kings and rulers (i.e. Abdali, Ghaznavid and Ghorid rulers) arguing that their names should not be bracketed with tools of destruction and killing".

Almost 1 line and only a single sentence !! Ariana (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the "Afghan government" to "Afghan government official", unless you can find a credible source stating it was the Afghan government that complained. Otherwise it is okay. Attach the BBC reference as well and add these following lines to it to give both views.

"In 2006, an Afghan government official criticized Pakistan for naming its lethal ballistic missiles and other weaponry after Afghan kings and rulers (i.e. Abdali, Ghaznavid and Ghorid rulers) arguing that their names should not be bracketed with tools of destruction and killing. Pakistan declined to change the missiles names stating that these Muslim rulers are considered heroes in Pakistan as well and naming missiles after them is not controversial. Afghan side has not raised this issue since 2006".

The above sounds reasonable and balanced. Your thoughts... Raza0007 (Talk) 15:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. Ariana (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, that does not sound reasonable and balanced. Raza0007 is POV pushing by stating "[an] Afghan government official"... That would mean that only one person in Afghanistan was against this but that's a lie because the critism was raised inside the Afghan parliament and through the Afghan Foreign Ministry the official complaint was sent to Pakistan's government. I want to remind Raza0007 that the government speaks for the entire nation if you didn't know this. Since Raza0007 is a Pakistani he's obviously trying to defend his country, but encyclopedias are not suppose to be edited by nationalists who are pushing their POVs. We have to realize that both Pakistan and Afghanistan do not like one another. There is no mystery behind this. Pakistan in this case used Afghan rulers for destructive devices and Afghanistan didn't like the idea, they (Afghans) claimed that Pakistan never named any university, college, school, hospital, park, street, etc., using these Afghan names but instead decided to use the Afghan names on nuclear missiles. There is obviously some evil intention behind this because why didn't they name the nuclear missiles after the biggest Pakistani heros, Jinnah or Iqbal? You find streets, parks, schools, hospitals, colleges, named after them all across Pakistan. BTW, just because Afghanistan didn't make Pakistan rename these missiles doesn't mean it failed, it let India and the rest of the world know that Afghanistan has nothing to do with Pakistan and it's nuclear missiles.--Hazaraguy (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a credible source backing your claim that the Afghan govt. or the Afghan people complained to Pakistan. If the afghan govt had complained the Afghan Foreign minister would have filed an official complaint not the information minister. We can only add that information here on wikipedia that is backed by credible references.

By the way, I consider all these rulers as heroes and I am sure majority of Pakistanis feel the same. That is the reason Pakistan named our most capable assets after them. and I personally do not discriminate on basis of race and ethnicity. Since they were Muslims and fought for the glory of Islam, as far as I am concerned they are my heroes. Raza0007 (Talk) 10:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose renaming the "criticism" section to "naming controversy". Wlmg (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's more appropriate. Ariana (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the section being named "naming controversy".--Hazaraguy (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the names physically painted onto the missiles? The way the section is written seems to indicate this. Wlmg (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for official missile tests and display purposes the names are printed on the missiles. Raza0007 (Talk) 12:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry could not respond earlier, was busy on Sunday. Whats written on the page is already different from what was agreed above. Do we have to go through all this again? If nobody objects I will change it to the paragraph agreed earlier. Raza0007 (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are given in the section and you're asking me to provide that to you? Why don't you just click on it and start reading. Since you asked for it no problem here it is I'll post it: KABUL: Afghanistan has complained to Pakistan for naming lethal ballistic missiles and other weaponry after heroes of Afghan history - the latest episode in the testy relations between the Asian neighbors, an official said Wednesday. Makhdom Raheen, the Afghan information minister, said Kabul recently sent a letter through its Foreign Ministry to Pakistan over its use of names including Mohammed Ghauri, a 12th-century Muslim conqueror. One series of Pakistan’s ballistic missiles is called Ghauri. “We asked them not to use the names of great elders of Afghanistan on weapons of mass destruction or other war equipment,” Raheen said. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam refused to comment or say whether it had received such a letter. Afghanistan is also complaining about Pakistan’s use of the name of Ahmad Shah Abdali. ap[2] If Pakistan said they didn't recieve the letter that doesn't prevent us from writing this in the section.

Another source:KABUL, Feb 22: Afghanistan formally complained to Pakistan for naming its ballistic missiles and other weapons after historic Afghan heroes, a minister said here on Wednesday. Afghan Information Minister Makhdom Raheen said that Kabul had recently sent a letter through its foreign ministry to Pakistan over the use of names of Afghan nation’s heroes, including Mohammed Ghauri, a 12th-century conqueror who ruled what is now Afghanistan and invaded areas in what is now India and Pakistan several times. A series of Pakistan’s ballistic missiles is named after Ghauri, including a 1,500-kilometre-range nuclear-capable weapon. “We asked them (Pakistan) not to use the names of great elders of Afghanistan on weapons of mass destruction or other war equipment,” Mr Raheen said. “These great elders played a major part in building national solidarity and in transferring science and knowledge from the homeland across southwest Asia.” Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam refused to comment or say whether it had received such a letter. Afghanistan is also complaining about Pakistan’s use of the name of Ahmad Shah Abdali, an 18th century king who founded the powerful Durrani dynasty, on a weapon that Raheen did not identify. Abdali laid the foundations for the Pashtun tribal rule in Afghanistan. Mr Raheen said Pakistan was welcome to use the names but only for peaceful things like memorials, monuments, conference rooms and historical places. — AP[3]

Another source:Afghanistan is seeking to reclaim its heritage by asking Pakistan to stop naming nuclear missiles after its heroes. Pakistan should consider giving the Ghauri and Abdali missiles, named after conquerors of parts of the Indian subcontinent, new codenames, Kabul has insisted. "Afghan kings and emperors such as Ghauri and Abdali spread art and civilisation across the sub-continent," said Makhdom Raheen, the Afghan information minister. "Their names should not be used for tools of war and killing." But the request is likely to fall on deaf ears as Pakistan, a young country where heroes are scarce, has made Islamic warriors, such as Ghauri, its own. Pakistanis contend that Ghauri was buried in the Punjab, where the renegade scientist A Q Khan who is under arrest for selling nuclear secrets abroad, erected a shrine to the historical figure. The shrine stands with a 20ft tall model of his Ghauri rocket and large hoardings depicting him and the "warrior saint". Mohammad Ghauri was a 12th-century Muslim conqueror of India who came from Afghanistan. The 18th-century king Ahmad Shah Abdali, who also has a missile named after him, led several invasions into India and founded the first Pashtun dynasty in 1748.[4]

You guys have been editing Wikipedia for a long time now and you know how things work here, we write in the section the same way these sources explain it. However, Raza0007 is trying to put this information in his own words by asserting that only this one Makhdom Raheen complained about the names. The sources say that an official complaint was delivered to Pakistan throught Afghanistan's foreign ministry. That is how we have to report the incident, that it wasn't just someone protesting in his office to himself.--Hazaraguy (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to mention that the Afghan Parliament first discussed the issue, then told the Ministry of Information and Culture to react, and then the Minister of Information and Culture sent the letter through the Foreign Ministry, and on and on. Just go directly to the point and say that the Minister of Information and Culture sent an official letter to the government of Pakistan, that's all. What's the point of all that? Please don't insist on a blank point. You are not adding anything significant to the paragraph, you are just making it lengthier without any additional point. Ariana (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me but letter is not a good word to use here in Wikipedia, it is officially called a complaint. Sure everything is written on letters but we have to be more specific here.--Hazaraguy (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:GhauriMissile.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GhauriMissile.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghauri (missile). 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/20141224114243/http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm to http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224114243/http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm to http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224114243/http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm to http://www.geo.tv/12-21-2010/76139.htm

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) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Ghauri-Hatf-V-Missile.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2022 (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:

• Ghauri MRBM.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)