Talk:Ghaznavi (missile)

Criticism Section
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) 16:37, 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. You should have considered that yourself.


 * To cover the naming of the missile as "Ghaznavi" 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)


 * I agree that the criticisms should be included, but in my opinion a dispute over a name does not merit an entire section. One or two lines should suffice.--Hj108 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, the content can be moved into another section, where appropriate. Ariana (talk) 11:40, 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) 15:15, 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) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion continues here on Ghauri missile talk page. Raza0007 (Talk) 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghaznavi (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/20081201153948/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missile2003.htm to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missile2003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghaznavi-missile-Hatf-3.jpg