Talk:Babur (cruise missile)

the video that pakistan realised about the alleged barbur III slbm is faked. it's all CGI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.0.157 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Added extra info regarding the Babur Cruise Missile.

Please sing your comment's...anywhat, GREAT JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!, it look's great, and look's professional too, you should really start updating other pakistani defense related article's, that being said...keep a npov--Maliki 786 09:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone's been...."messing around" with the article, so I locked it, aight'? (any objections?)--Maliki 786 09:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am writting in behalf of my fellow editor, User:ءلی We, the fore-mentioned and myself, have taken the liberty and responsibility of protecting the page of "Babur missile" for numerous reason's, one of them being vandalism. Along with the said vandalism, my collegue and I ,(and you if you decide to join)are going through a major revamping and expansion of this article ("Babur missile")and would appericiate it if you would put down reason's regarding major changes in the "Discussion" box. This is NOT an attempt to take control of an article,(said "Babur missile") but to merely to put a stop to repeated vandalism and what not, we are respected wikipedian's (or atleast think we are...) and would take any request to unblock this article in to consideration. thank you for your time--Maliki 786 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Only administrators posses the power to protect a page. If you are interested in protecting this page, then please contact an administrator. By adding template, a page cannot be protected. --Deepak|वार्ता 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

damn...Well, Keep every thing on that letter true, except for the protection part--Maliki 786 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomahawk reverse-engineering
An anonymous user added two paragraphs that Babur was reverse engineered from the Tomahawk with Chinese support, and an external link that did not back up this assertion. I have combined and reworded this contribution to add uncertainty and a supporting footnote. If there is a credible source (It's not great to use a forum discussion for an external link) that states for certain that it comes from the Tomahawk, please make the appropriate changes with a supporting footnote. I think that you can see the existing footnote to see how to do them. If anyone can't figure it out, please let me know here and I can assist by putting it in. Thanks, BanyanTree 13:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article itself says that there is no evidence for the reverse engineering theory.. so why is that the first thing mentioned in the design paragraph? Also, the article speculates on Chinese assistance while the reference link given for that is for the Pakistani military and has nothing about Chinese assistance on it.Fkh82 02:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Pakistan could not have salvaged the embedded systems of the Tomahawks, since they are likely to be in classified programming languages" is absolutely preposterous! As a researcher in embedded real-time systems I can safely say that there are no "classified" programming languages. Secondly, even given that such a language did exist, it would be compiled to what we call machine code before being deployed on board the missile controller. I am correcting the sentence so it sounds less stupid.

I am convinced about the reverse engineering however, I dont beleive it was from Chinese assitance.From what I know, Pak shared the technology with China after reverse engineeering it.-Vmrgrsergr 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

External link
i put an external link for Tomahawk reverse-engineering which does support this anonymous users claim..Thanks Tere naam

Is Babur related to the Chinese (YJ-62) Missile? No authentic sources to support this claim.
The revision made to state that Babur is more comparable to Tomahawk then the Chinese YJ-62 is a wrong assumption. For a person with good vision can easily see the exact replica of the Babur in YJ-62 rather than the Tomohawk. The Chinese government may not issue statement that they have supplied the missiles to Pakistan for political reasons and since that will make them violator of the MTCR and Babur is claimed by Pakistan to be a missile to be with 500 km range. It is also not in Pakistan's interest to say that it is a Chinese missile as it may create trouble for China.

For evidence regarding the Babur being YJ-62, Jane's has reported that China has test fired a new version of YJ-62 Missile. This is the improved YJ-62 with vertical launch capability or the Babur Missile as stated by Jane's.

Chanakyathegreat 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ..... lol its mean pakistani scientist are sleeping .. dont do propaganda MR !

"This is Wikipedia and a credible website" >> "no need for further explanation for a person who can see and think properly." Great job buddy, keep editing those articles without providing sources. I would like to see input from someone who's able to comprehend that co-naming a missile requires that they are carbon copies of each other. If one is based on the other, or borrows technical and/or design traits from it, then that may be mentioned in the article using factual sources. Whether it's an insecurity complex or something else, please keep it away from this article. Afinebalance 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Babur Submarine Launched?
I can see from earlier posts that there has been some disturbance here. I just wanted to ask any contributor or other person 1 question. Is the BABUR an SLCM that means is it submarine launched or will it be submarine launched. Thanks in advance. Enthusiast10 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Should title be changed to "Babur cruise missile"?
Changing the title, please discuss here if you disagree. Hj108 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits (July 2009)
Aaron Pris (I.P. 82.46.136.94), please try understanding why I reverted your edits, read the edit summaries. My revert was not pointless at all.

The info you added about the Mughal emperor is already in his article, you don't need to add it here too. If people want to know more about him, they'll follow the link to his article. The Capabilities section you added makes the following points: terrain hugging, advanced navigation/guidance system, very manoeuvrable, stealthy, penetrates enemy air defence. All five points are already covered under the Design section. The reason the article does not talk about "loss of GPS signal forces it to rely on Chinese Beidou satellites and TERCOM" is there is no reliable source that talks about this. Unless you find one and add it, you can't put this info in the article. We don't know for sure if it can use Chinese nav satellites or if it can rely on TERCOM alone.

More of the same under "Reaction" section. You wrote about the advanced cruise missile being a surprise to many countries and a statement by Musharraf. Both are already included under "Operational history" because they happened after the first missile test in 2005.

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, that's why it is organised in this way. Are you reading it properly before you edit? Hj108 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor with IP address 81.147.76.124, I'm undoing your edit dated 10:11, July 20, 2009 for the reasons stated above. Hj108 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Babur (cruise missile). 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/20090604083602/http://www.janes.com:80/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2000/China-s-new-cruise-missile-programme-racing-ahead.html to http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2000/China-s-new-cruise-missile-programme-racing-ahead.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 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Babur missile edits
, Can you please discuss what edit have been unreliable. On the contrary you are adding sources which fit under WP:SPS and are not WP:RS. Also NDTV is not considered a non-reliable source. Plus you have also removed sourced content. Please do not engage in disruptive editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC) ::@Adamgerber80 Wikipedia is edited by humans, not bots, that is why there is a human element in choosing reliable sources. The first thing is that Indian sources, especially claims that are not backed by government and academia, are never good sources for Pakistani military. That is almost universal, with a few exceptions. The second thing is that when multiple reliable sources agree on something, then a single claim by a biased sourced that is not third party, is always rejected and not included. Reliable sources should be third party, you will find that written quite clearly in WP:RS so for the reasons that this claim is against the consensus of a number of reliable sources, and it is in a biased, involved source, and on top of that it is not backed by any academic sources or observations, it can be said with full certainty that it is just propaganda, which is not included in wikipedia articles. And this works both ways, pakistani propaganda should also be removed whenever it is encountered, same is that case with the USA and N.K, we should remove propaganda and accept only reliable claims. n.b. you should use a "notice" template instead of "warn" template when there is no clear disruption. Thanks for the TP discussion. I hope all is clear now. Elektricity (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock of FreeatlastChitchat
 * There are multiple points of discussion here and it seems you either did not edit correctly or are deliberately ignoring them, First, adding 750km for Babur-2 based on a resource which is clearly WP:SPS and thus unacceptable. Organizations do publish papers or research but here this is not the case the writer is expressing his personal opinion but yet you added it. Second, there is not source which claims for certain that Babur missile entered in service with the Pakistan army in 2010. The source (MTCR) which does clearly states that this widely believed to be the case. But you changed this wording to indicate that this was a certainty. Also, here you added that it entered service with the Pakistan Navy since 2017 and referenced it based on a source which is almost a WP:TABLOID and even here the source does not mention that it has entered service. This is pure WP:OR on your part. Third, the Babur missile analysis has existed on this page for quite some time and many other editors have allowed it to remain here since it is based on WP:RS. It is purely WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on your part to declare it as propaganda and remove it. You have provided no references on your part to claim that is biased or propaganda expect that it comes from an Indian website. I also find it a bit hypocritical that you pick and choose your sources based on your convenience where you used a published post of an Indian general to claim 750km and don't call this biased on the other hand claim another India media outlet is biased because it does not suit your narrative. Please answer to these three points. Also, the disruptive editing warning was warranted since you are clearly removing sourced content which has been present on this page for quite some time and adding poorly source content based on random reasons. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not even a military/official "claim", it is just a tweet from a random guy. So it is not multiple "analysts", rather one single guy who is "an enthusiast", not an analyst. Twitter is not RS for this kind of outlandish claims. Furthermore, being third party is clearly mentioned in RS policy, and India is not a third party. So yes, being an Indian source does make it doubtful. Lets say we let this go, but on top of that, it is a wild claim, which runs counter of reports from a large number of sources who are RS and who who are unanimous. Then there is the issue that the global security community did not take it seriously. So it is not just one thing, rather 5 things that make this unworthy of inclusion. I do not care for how long it has been here, if it is not supported by RS, it should be removed. The Range of 750 is cited in a number of sources, even popular science has it. However this kind of wrangling is common in weapons, especially secretive programs like these. We should place two ranges, 750 Pakistani Claim, 700 (Source) Claim. I am sure that will solve the issue. The term "widely believed" means "That is as much truth as we are going to get" when talking about secretive military programs. We can write "widely believed" if you want, it is not that much of a copy vio to require a quote, just put it in. As for the template, it was just advice, you can ignore it if you wish, there is no need to discuss it. Elektricity (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock of FreeatlastChitchat
 * Please refrain from editing the page until this discussion is over. I will again urge you to answer the points I have raise very clearly because it seems you are deliberately ignoring points I have raised. First, you have not yet provided a source which claims the missile is in service with the Pakistani Navy. The source provided does not state so. All that sources state is that the missile was tested in 2017 which does not translate into entering service. Your interpretation of "widely believed" is pure synthesis now that these are secretive programs. Stick to the facts as entered without adding your own WP:OR to it. Second, there is no source which states the range as 750 km. You claim that it is stated in many sources but have yet to provide even a single one. The one you used is clearly a WP:SPS and not permissible. So the question of mentioning two ranges holds no merit until there is a reliable source. Third, I think your understanding is of WP:RS is clearly flawed. The third-party in the text mesnd a reputed publication source not a party which is not India. When and how does India become the second party here to make someone else a third party? Moreover, the person in question is considered an expert and many media outlets published it makes it WP:RS per Wikipedia guidelines. If you think this is incorrect, I am happy to involve an administrator. To me your edits are appearing to be POV because you are cherry picking facts per your convenience. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It was you who stated that "The source (MTCR) which does clearly states that this widely believed to be the case". I edited the article to insert what you had asked to be written i.e. the exact words in your statement. If you have changed your mind about your own statement in the past 2-3 hours, maybe you should stop participating in the editing for a while, until you have made up your mind. Now the tweet in question is not from anyone in the military, it is not from any organization or any company or service that analyses launches. It is from a single guy sitting at home, who "thinks" that what he saw something awry on the satellite imagery, the imagery which by the way is not attributed to the launch by any source. Contradicting him is BBC and a ton of other sources, which are more reliable. If an administrator has time on hand, I have no doubts he will be able to tell you that this kind of sourcing is no bueno here. You can ask one on his TP if you are so inclined. You also need to re-read the article, there is a source already in place for the 750 km range, and I have already acquiesced to citing two sources for two different range claims, that should be the end of it. (I am sure an administrator will tell you that as well). Please ping me when you have made up your mind about what your actual statement is, and then strike one of your statements for they are contradictory right now. Then reread the article and take note of the source attached to the 750 km Range. India is always an "involved" party when Pakistani Military claims are mentioned. I think any administrator you contact will tell you that as well. Please do not ping me without a clear stance on the sourcing concern and the text in the article. Elektricity (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock of FreeatlastChitchat
 * Please read my statement very carefully. The MTCR statement states the missile is widely believed to have entered in service with the Pakistan Army in 2010. There is no source for the Pakistan Navy. There is a single source which states that the range is 750km and this is clearly WP:SPS. You seem to be deliberately ignoring these facts. So either provide a WP:RS here which states 750km or let others edit it out. Third, it now clearly seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT about the third issues. I don't think you have provided any strong evidence to back your claim. And BBC or other sources do not contradict him. Please show where they actually state this he is incorrect.  I would like your comments on this since the user seems to be not talking to the points I have raised or engaging in a meaningful discussion under Wikipedia guidelines. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There was no other change. As you were the one who wanted this change when you said "The source (MTCR) which does clearly states that this widely believed to be the case", I am sure you will agree with this. Now the range of the weapon is a contentious issue, so there are multiple claims. I proposed that we place the claims side by side. The source of 750 km can be the one that is in place right now, or you can take this pakistani website, or this website, or this story from popular science. The claim is out there, and the counter claim is out there as well. So it makes sense to list them both as neither of them have been investigated and proven/disproven. I do not know why you continue to debate the test issue. Multiple reliable sources such as BBC, the Diplomat, and even the CNN and VOA are all unanimous in their verdict/report that a test did indeed occur. There is a direct quote from Bharat Karnad, a research professor at India's Centre for Policy Research who says "It is a threat, but something the Indian navy is confident it can deal with". Arguing against the unanimous verdict of these reliable sources is a collection of four tweets from a retired military guy in India who is not connected to any military think tank or any other organization. This guy did not serve as an analyst and he has never been taught the skills of image analysis. His Twitter profile is full of conspiracy theory items such as "China destroying the Brahmaputra river" conspiracy that is currently trending in ultra right Hindu news outlets. To compare the opinion of a conspiracy nut to that of dozens of reliable sources is unheard of in a civilized discussion. If you can find any other "expert", perhaps we can begin to talk about this. But all you have is a single conspiracy nut going against the entire journalistic body. Your claim that BBC does not contradict this nut is quite false, you need to read the links please. Elektricity (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock of FreeatlastChitchat
 * I am refering to this edit of yours. You have made 3 changes which I have raised. You clearly added Pakstani Navy. So be cognizant of your edits. Only now you have added WP:RS for 750 km which was not the case earlier. He is a conspiracy theorist is clearly your view. The person was published my numerous relaible media source which makes it WP:RS per Wikipedia guidelines and should also be included in the page. I am going to take this to content dispute if you continue with your POV edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I edited the page on 16:33, 28 December 2017‎ and we started the TP discussion with your edit  three minutes later. Then as the discussion progressed, you said that the words "widely believed" are used by sources in this edit on 05:45, 29 December 2017. I accepted your argument and edited the page on 07:02, 29 December 2017‎ to include the words "widely believed", and in the very next TP edit on 09:13, 29 December 2017 you said "Elektricity Please refrain from editing the page until this discussion is over." I think even a toddler can see that you were referring to my later edit where I added what you required into the page. Furthermore, if you were referring to my edit from the past as you say, then how can you say "until this discussion is over"? When this edit was made there was no TP discussion going on. I merely point this out because I am sensing a bit of bad faith on your part, so I would like to make sure that you get called out from time to time. As I stated earlier, not every source is reliable in every situation. If you want to debate this matter about the conspiracy theory, we should head over to the RSN and then come back here once the matter is decided there. I have started a discussion there. I have already given a number of sources about the 750 range and I have said that we can include both claims. As Pakistan claim that its range is 750 km, it requires that we place that in the infobox, but if other sources disagree, we should place that disagreement in the box as well as per WP:BALANCE. Elektricity (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC) blocked sock of FreeatlastChitchat

Proposed merge with Harbah
There is little information available about the missile. Sources indicate that the missile is a derivative of the the Babur missile system. It makes sense to mention this as a further development of the missile system on that article and fork a new article when new information is released. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Which source idiot, an indian source?? LOL.. Harbah is a new missile with a new air intake, watch it’s footages. Don’t spoil the page with your biased information. Any information will be from Pakistan sources, not your fake Indian sources. faiankhan919 (talk) 19:27, 02 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would very careful with your wording and refrain from personal attacks. Please discuss based on sources here. I have already provided a neutral source which puts the missile being based on Babur. If you have sources which state otherwise, feel free to present them here and initiate a discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Harbah missile ready for use
As ex-naval chief of Pakistan navy Admiral Zakaullah himself stated that “Harbah is ready for use” so it should be developed not under-development. Faizankhan919 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We need a WP:RS and Quwa is not considered one. Plus the missile has only gone one test and has not entered service. Thus, the under development status. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute biased language usage
Most of the page include biased language by debuting the Pakistani POV, following the NPOV rules I suggest adding a tag to the page. Omar Shammi (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)