text:
Wikipedia talk:Donating copyrighted materials

February 2005
Great idea, Jmabel -- excellent and much-needed resource. Please be sure to note something about No original research here, if you would -- don't want people thinking this is another avenue for crackpot theories. (Don't want to interrupt your "in-use" editing to do it myself.) — Catherine\talk 20:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about other kinds of permission?
I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

nothanks
God resource. I've been looking for something like this for a while. I have proposed adding a link to Template:nothanks. Bovlb (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"someone will contact"
In the Granting us permission to copy material already online section, it says to post to the talk page, and "Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission". How does this process get started? I'm specifically referring to User:ITU-T, who had posted copyvio material to the page Malcolm Johnson (Director) and now has a permission statement on their userpage. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"someone will contact" redux, suggest revising
Currently, this document says: If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or on your user page if your site covers a number of topics). This does require that your site have a posted email contact, or some other similar means for us to verify that we really do have the relevant permission. Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission, and we will be able to add your site to a list of those from which our editors may freely draw. This is less than ideal for many reasons, not the least of which is that few (if any) of the editors addressing copyright concerns are members of the Communications Committee. Wikipedia's editors and administrators must follow the same procedure as other contributors, going through WP:Permissions process to first obtain a letter of clearance from the webmasters and then forward it to the Communications Committee. Adding this middle man creates pointless delay. I believe that this document should be updated to suggest that the copyright owners send the letter themselves, as it is already recommended at WP:IOWN. Accordingly, I suggest: If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or talk pages, if more than one article) and send an e-mail confirming this from an address associated with the site to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" (an OTRS address). Your e-mail should include the source Internet URL and the name of the article(s) on Wikipedia. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information, including an example declaration of consent which you may find useful. Note that the material must be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, as "Requesting copyright permission" sets out. I've removed the bit about listing of sites from which we may freely draw. Unless an OTRS ticket is added to the title at that list, it doesn't seem to be usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've rewritten and updated much of the page to reflect how things are actually supposed to be done now. It was all pretty wrong before, not to mention confusing, mixing info about text and images without really distinguishing which parts applied to which content. I also removed a redundant section that was partially incorrect. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Looks good to me! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL
Are some of the references to GFDL on this page outdated? For example, should we retain the description of GFDL as one of many option for images but not suggest it for textual contributions? I think the advice can be improved, but I'd rather leave the exact wording to an expert than boldly get it wrong myself. Certes (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I may not be following you precisely, but if you are suggesting that we eliminate reference to GFDL from text donations, we really can't if we are to comply with wmf:Terms of Use. It is required that copyright holders (unless they are coholders of copyright) license material under both CC-By-SA and GFDL. If that's not what you mean, could you be more specific about your concern? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's answered my question. I was unsure of the exact status of GFDL for text, now that standard page footers etc. have been changed to mention only CC-by-SA explicitly.  In that case the existing text looks fine. Certes (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell
Can we get a "In a nutshell" paragraph for this page, so that potential donors don't have to study the whole article to get the idea? I've written a proposal below.

Diego (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi. I've tweaked the first line, as OR is not the extent of what we don't want and as the phrase is rather idiosyncratic. I think it's easier to understand in context below. What many might think of as "original research" is fine with us--if an acknowledged expert in a field wants to donate previously published material with us, that's great. :)

 * I've removed the second bit for now because of this part: "Write an explicit donation that can be referenced with the article" I don't understand what you mean. The final sentence is quite likely true for text, but seldom is for images. I'm not sure that it's a good "nutshell" reference above since it's not really reflective of the contents, though I'm inclined to agree that it's important to communicate that clearly to donors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is more or less "you must give explicit permission for the content to be used freely (either in Wikipedia or elsewhere)". This can be either by using a free license, or by writing a non-exclusive license for the content to appear in derivative works (such as Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat or others). I'm not sure how to redact this idea concisely and without using Wikipedia jargon. Diego (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about "You must give explicit permission for the content to be used under acceptable license (see below)"? I don't think it's too burdensome for them to read below to see what an acceptable license is. Given the diversity, I'm not sure we could do a nutshell otherwise. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the email required to be from the external site to verify the person sending is not just anyone?
"If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site." Doesn't this need to say something like (bolding for emphasis): "If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact email from an email address containing the domain name of the external site, thus showing your authority to donate, permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuhghettaboutit (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 February 2010

More permissive licenses?
I have a number of websites at which I release all content under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver (CC0). My intuition is that this material really ought to be available for use on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't mention anything about more permissive licenses. So my questions are:

 * Is CC0 an acceptable license (or waiver statement, rather) for text to be used by Wikipedia?
 * Is CC-BY (without multilicensing under GFDL) an acceptable license for text to be used by Wikipedia?
 * What other licenses might qualify?
 * Should these be listed as alternative options on this page?

Thanks for any input. Dcoetzee 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(policy) --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Archived to Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78LeadSongDog come howl!  17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Interests of commercial photographers
I wrote a blog post, [http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/open-licensing-images-what-how/ Open-licensing your images. What it means and how to do it], to encourage people to make images available to Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons. An interesting debate about doing this, vs. the interests of commercial photographers, has developed in the comments. Further input is welcome (as would be pointers to any previous discussion). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Permission to copy content not already online
This document needs a going over to allow for the possibility of permission from print sources, as we occasionally do have book and journal authors who import their content here. I'd like to develop a new section called "Granting us permission to copy offline materials" that will talk about some of the ways these authors can verify. This is slightly more complex, since they can't easily put a note on the website, but some of the ways that can work include (a) emailing from an email associated with the author, if s/he has a clear online presence (as with university professors) or a statement on that website; (b) emailing from an email associated with the publisher (journal or book authors) or a statement on their website. I assume that we can trust them if they say they have the rights; while I know of one significant and painful case where we had to remove content of a published author because his publisher objected, this has only happened once that I know of and legally we should be protected by the authorization of the author, I think. I'll propose what I come up with here, of course, but before I start working on it just wanted to share my thoughts and see if anybody else had any others. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously published
The note at the top of the page reads "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work." In U.S. copyright law (among others) there is no requirement that the work be published in order to attract copyright protection. Would it be prudent to change the wording to reflect the situation more accurately? Something like, "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own existing work."? ... disco spinster   talk  02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if it isn't previously published, it may be difficult for them to verify ownership and would seem to be unnecessary in most cases. While, for example, we often compose text on the fly, people who take photographs and upload them are always going to be adding "existing work". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Club Alpbach Croatia
Hi there copyright minded people. I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Granting us permission to copy material already online
Is it applicable to granting us permission to copy material already on facebook pages or groups? Can we consider facebook pages or groups as “site”? --Anton ·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the owner of an individual Facebook page can release that content. Obviously, they cannot release the entire site. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sister project and communication
I would like to know that how to communicate for granting us permission to copy material already online, particularly for other Wikipedia such as Tamil Wikipedia. The section suggest to send email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] or [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org]. Does this email applicable to all Wikipedia projects such as Tamil, etc? I do not see WP:DCP page at many Wikipedias. Actually, I have been asked by a user for granting us (Tamil Wikipedia) permission to copy material already online. As far I know Tamil Wikipedia uses an gmail ID for communication. How could it be possible for an official communication? -- Anton Talk  20:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Anton. Speaking as an OTRS volunteer, I do not believe that there's any eason you cannot use permissions-en@ as long as the communication is in English - the mailing address is not specifically for matters related to the English Wikipedia, but for all contacts in English. That said, English speaking volunteers may be less familiar with the Tamil Wikipedia and might be nervous about logging the permission in an unfamiliar environment. The best thing is if they are willing to put the release on their website. This is a very transparent approach, as anyone can see and confirm the license. Some people prefer not to host the license perpetually - that's okay. They need to understand that even if they stop publishing the license, it remains in effect. What we typically recommend in such cases is taking a snapshot of the license and storing it on the talk page. Template:Text_release talks about how to do this under "usage" via an archive URL. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moonriddengirl for your explanation. -- Anton Talk  15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "donating" the best word?
Donation implies giving something up. I thought about "releasing", but it shares the same potential problem in misunderstanding. Wouldn't it be better to retitle this page to "Sharing copyrighted materials"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Donating is a little misleading for the reason you describe, but I'm afraid "sharing" may not make clear the scope of the release. If I were going to rename it (about which I have no strong feelings, as I haven't really ever encountered any questions or confusions about this in my years working in this area), I'd probably just be frank about it: "Licensing your copyrighted materials". OTOH, the page does define pretty quickly what it means. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'Donating your photographs' section
The above mentioned section gives a list of license templates that is not the same as the one found at File copyright tags. I suggest removing the list from this page and replacing it with a link to WP:FCT instead. Having the list in a single place makes maintenance easier. —capmo (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ownership vs copyright
I think we should make it clear that owning a physical copy of a work does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Especially the "photographs" section would benefit from this. I'm suggesting this as one user at Commons has complained about lack of such guidance which in turn led to an invalid OTRS ticket and much dismay. Particularly I would like to suggest the following change:  →. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a valid rephrasing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have now changed this phrase. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kibrit Creative Solutions
Wiki tags this article as Coppy right item etc. however Im the owner of this creative studio which all text are already my own and I would like to add on wiki. (Oliviadurak (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)).
 * Please follow the instructions at Donating_copyrighted_materials. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY v4
If content is available CC-BY under v4 of the CC licenses am I right in thinking we can import it here with attribution, but It can't go the other way as we require SA? Or is there a problem moving between v3 and v4 of the licenses?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Appropriate Copyrights
Hi! I have doubts about the Creative Commons Licenses and Copyright Donation Processes. I uploaded an article to Wikipedia and it was deleted with a speedy deletion tag under the G12 Unambiguous Copyright Infringement category. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Illicit_Alcohol) Now, the original paper is on the Euromonitor website, as well in Tracit.org.

The question is: where the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be? Has it to be explicit in the paper (both websites or in the original site of publication) or in a specific place on the website, so that once the information is published in wikipedia, it is fulfilling all the copyright requirements?

There is it any other type of license this document could have or is the referred ones (CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 and the GFDL) the mandatory ones for it? Is there a license that allows the content to keep uploaded on Wikipedia, without the document being permitted to be modified and adapted by any other person, website and organization? Once the author has done this licenses processes, where in Wikipedia exactly has to be the link that confirms this article has the appropriate copyright to be uploaded?

The paper is an information to be downloaded at the Euromonitor WebSite and in Tracit.org it is in the following link: https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf

Thank you very much for your help, very appreciated. AlcoholEducation (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Hello, AlcoholEducation. Hopefully I can help.
 * The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be disclosed specifically as relates to the content in any linkable place on the website of the copyright owner. It does not have to be on the same page where the publication is, although that's the easiest. But, for example, it would be permissible for the copyright-holding site to post on a subpage a notice to the point that:
 * The text located at  is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
 * There are some pitfalls with doing that instead of putting the notice on the bottom of the page where the text is displayed, including that if the page still contains the blanket copyright claim the material may be inadvertently deleted by somebody who doesn't notice the license.

 * Whether the license is published on the same page or elsewhere, the copying should be acknowledged on the talk page of the article on Wikipedia with a link to the license and on the bottom of the article itself, unless you yourself are the copyright holder. In that case, the process is a little different. Usually the posting on the article includes a citation to the source and an additional note something like, "This article incorporates text taken directly from this source, which is licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0 and GFDL." Within that statement, you would link to the appropriate release.

 * No license more restrictive than CC-By-SA 3.0 and GFDL are accepted for text donations to Wikipedia. All acceptable licenses allow both modification and commercial reuse.

 * You say that the paper is hosted on two sites. I do not know which owns the copyright, but that is the one that must publish the license. If copyright is shared, I would recommend that they both do. If one owns the copyright and the other is using it by permission, it may cause confusion if both are displaying copyright claims. So, for instance, if it is owned by Tacit, it could complicate matters if Euromonitor posts it under full reservation and copyright claim to themselves. In that case, it would be far easier if Euromonitor hosted it 'By permission of Tacit' and acknowledges that the copyright belongs to Tacit.

 * In any case, you would want to post a link to the release or releases. Avoiding confusion will help avoid issues.

 * Please note that if you are including images, these need to be uploaded independently of the text in the article, and each image will need to include a link to the release and full copyright and licensing information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Broken tool
The donation engine (linked by a big, prominent blue button on this page) is not working, as part of the toolforge deprecation. Update needed. Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

THE MAN WHO DESIGNED PAKISTAN’S BOMB
Check this article for some related details; http://newsweekpakistan.com/the-man-who-designed-pakistans-bomb/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.46.165 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Bhutto's statement
Former Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto had publicly said "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own". This statement was issued by him as State Secretary of State of Pakistan, in 1965, not in 1974 or 1972. Recent studies conducted by International Institute for Strategic Studies (link)and Nuclear Threat Initiatives (NTI) also confirmed this statement's time.

There are no such evidence that he issued this statement in 1974. Instead, the only statement he issued by saying "India's nuclear program is designed to intimidate Pakistan and establish "hegemony in the subcontinent", which was issued shortly after Indian test. So, Instead of putting his statement together in one paragraph, both of these statements should be posted in different paragraphs. Because they are issued in different time, and different places. Any views?

Even, the one "The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?", was issued from his jail cell in 1978 in a book he wrote "If I am assassinated", when he was ousted by his own appointed Chief of Army Staff General Zia. There should be concern about it, since this page is focused on neutrality, true facts, figures, and each individual's role in the scientific research delegated by Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto.

Any views? Comments?

 * The "eat grass" quote is so famous that it needs to be in this article, but the context should be corrected. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction is too long
Pakistan and WMD's introduction is too long and confusing. Instead the the information should be in the new head line such as "nuclear physics in Pakistan". Also, the article's title should be change to "Pakistan and Nuclear weapons". This may sound more professional. Also, about the weapon delivery, somebody has erased the Naval and Nuclear-capabel Aircraft Delivery systems info page. Most of the page is seem to be "copy and paste". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.143.129 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Project-706
The Project-706 was the codename of the nuclear program development program which we all know. But one important thing we need not to forget is that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto orchestrated that project by making Abdul Qadeer Khan as the head of one project which was gas centrifuge and enrichment. The entire nuclear program, including the weapon design and weapon production, was ran by the PAEC head. Mr. Munir Ahmad Khan. It was Munir Ahmad Khan who gave Pakistan the plutonium and trituim capability. Also, about the Project-706, Abdul Qadeer Khan did took over the Project-706's Uranium route (The Kahuta facility only) but it was under the guidance of Munir Ahmad Khan. PAEC Chairman Munir Ahmad Khan was the Head of the committee that was responsible for the construction of Kahuta facility as well as the nuclear weapon production. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was only responsible for the Gas-Centrifuge program. That was it!; The entire nuclear program, front and back, the civilian nuclear program and military based nuclear weapon program, was under the hands of Munir Ahmad Khan. So let's not forget that Bhutto delegated the program under Munir Ahmad Khan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and Zahid Ali Akbar not just Zahid Ali Akbar and Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Page Protection
This page is being vandalised on an almost daily basis. I have to keep checking this page to see if it is being vandalised. It's most likely being done by Indians.

This page must be given full protection!!!

Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)noorkhanuk85Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It need not be Indians always. Indians don't have so much animosity against Pakistan as perceived by the media and politicians. Let us get together and improve quality of content and provide the right information. Its not about who wins its about whats right!

24.199.196.180 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)BRS

No First Strike Policy
Some mention should be made of the historical decision by Pakistan prior to the Mumbai attacks to state openly that they will not use nuclear weapons first unless attacked. A No First Strike policy. I do not know if this has become official but the statement on Indian soil was a landmark in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Add more Info
you guys had more information instead of the boring atomic agencies and stuff like that...can we show a bit more effort on this article.Tere naam 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Missile Table requires cleanup
The 'status' columns is particularly confusing. Status marked against every missile is different on every line. For example, is Hatf-III "under going production" imply it is not "deployed" like Hatf-IV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adityagupta101 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Disagreement
There is a lack of agreement between the number of nuclear warheads Iran is said to have in this article and in the article List of countries with nuclear weapons.

 * This is a section for Pakistan's WMDs and there is no mention of Iran having working nuclear weaponsDaiyusha (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb00/nb0025.htm|title=Uranium
 * In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Mon Jul 17 15:37:32 2006, 404 Not Found
 * In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Thu Jul 27 00:51:15 2006, 404 Not Found

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote
I can't find (online) any source for the main quote "We will defend our country using any means necessary and build a nuclear capability second to none. We will eat grass for 1000 years, if we have to, but we will get there." - the only time it come up is morrors of wikipedai and a very recnet US spectator article. 160.5.247.8 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

recent developments
plz put facts not opinion (69.225.201.109 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

cruise missiles
No mention of cruise missiles.Pakistan has sucessfully reverse engineered American cruise missiles that accidently dropped into Pakistan.A few sources and we can create this section as it's important.-Vmrgrsergr 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt if Pakistan is capable of reverse engineering American missiles on its own, but it certainly can and probably did give such missiles to China to reverse-engineer.Daiyusha (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

NCA / National Command Authority: Links are bad
Article mentions but does not explicitly define "NCA". I assume this is "National Command Authority", but we need to define it explicitly in the article. NCA is a disamb page which does not mention any Pakistani organization likely to be the appropriate meaning here. National Command Authority links to an article on the National Command Authority of the United States. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Fixed!--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chagai / Chaghai / Chaghi
"Pakistan detonated 5 nuclear devices in the Chagai Hills in the Chaghai district, Balochistan. This operation was named Chagai-I by Pakistan.... the Directorate of Technical Development (DTD) .... carried out the Chaghi tests of May 28, 1998 and the Kharan test of May 30, 1998." -- Are "Chagai", "Chagai", and "Chaghi" the same here? Need to correct typo or regularize spelling? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * On 2023-02-08 user:2001:8f8:1335:23e9:bd58:d693:7910:fcee edited a section of the code for this article that was commented out.
 * The section in question begins:
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No move There is not a consensus for the move among established editors, and a quick Wikipedia search on weapons of mass destruction returns articles under that name for may states including India, Israel and the five members of the UN Security Council. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons The name of the article causes it to appear biased and requires a name that matches the information and shows a neutral point of view.(unsigned)
 * Proposed title should be capitalised Pakistan and nuclear weapons per WP:NAME. I have no opinion otherwise. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article makes it seem biased. There is also no mention of chemical or biological weapons within this article and Pakistan has no developed biological/chemical weapons. It needs to be changed.--Always Ahead (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do question the importance of "Pakistan is currently the only predominantly Muslim country with nuclear capabilities" would we put "Israel is currently the only predominantly Jewish country with nuclear capabilities"... I think it would be wiser to put this in the context of one of the Pakistani foreign ministers from the 1980's speech about if Pakistan got a nuclear weapon than the whole Muslim world would... that gives it some importance in the light of proliferation... gren

Wouldnt the title Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent be more apropriate? WMD is such a crap term only used to scare people by american news agencies.

 * I agree, the topic should be "Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent". That is the official policy of Pakistan, and so must Wikipedia respect it.

Added some more info to the chart with respect to correct nomenclature, payload, status, alt. names, and range. Source: PakDef.info and Pakistani Defence.com

"Pakistan and its Nuclear Detterent" sounds like there is a pro-Pakistani agenda. Nuclear weapons are aggressive weapons we must not let a national opinion/policy take its own tone in a wikipedia article. the closest safest bet it to use the neutral terms and point of view as used by the United Nations Izivkovi (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The term "weapons of mass destruction" was not invented by U.S. media as a scare tactic. It is a term used by the UN to describe nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  There is no bias in the term.  There is bias - in the form of ofuscation - in the proposd title "Pakistan and its Nuclear deterrent."  Furthermore, there are discussions elsewhere on the web of Pakistan having a chemical weapons program, though not a biological weapons program.  Therefore, I think the best thing to do is keep the title and include sections ofn CW and BW (the latter would say that Pakistan is not believed to have a BW program). NPguy (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Missile table
I just reverted an apparent good faith edit that replaced the previous table of Pakistani missiles with a pre-existing template. The original change had not been explained. To my eyes, the earlier version of the table was more useful as a reference - it contained substantive information rather than just a bunch of links to other articles. If there's a good reason for the change, please explain it here. NPguy (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 * This table was on about 11 pages here in wiki and on each page the contents (inventory,range,payload) were different. The inventory section is just made up numbers by somebody. On other pages people have pointed this out and since it was a lot of effort changing these numbers on each page so I made a template to make it easier to maintain the missile list. The template has links to the missile's respective pages where a reader can obtain the range,payload info easily. We can leave this table if you like it. Since now it is only this page that has it, so it won't be a lot of problem editing and maintaining it. Just wanted to let you know that there are inaccuracies in this table. Abdali missiles is listed as cancelled, it is very much operational. There is no Tipu missile in service or under development. Tipu was one of the name considered for either Babur or Raad but was discarded. Pakistan may name one future missile Tipu but right now Tipu does not exist. Shaheen-III and Ghauri-III are missing etc.
 * {Raza0007 | Talk} 09:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.  I'm surprised I haven't seen the discussion, but I don't focus on missile issues.  I do think the deleted table had one advantage over the one that replaced it: readability.  Is it possible to update the template so the table contains more information and not just a bunch of links? NPguy (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 * It is possible to update the template with more information but then the template will become unreadable due to too much information. That particular template listed all the missiles in the inventory of Pakistan and I am thinking that it will not be suitable on this page, as it deals only with WMDs. The missile table should list only those missiles that can carry non-conventional payload, so you have a point of keeping this current table. This current table does list most of Pakistan's Nuclear capable missiles and I will correct the mistakes on it then it should be fine. It would not make sense to make another template of this table as it is only going to be used on this one page and the advantage of a template is to make it easier to manage edits when the information is on multiple pages. I will update and improve this current table. Give me 1-2 days. I had replaced this table with the template earlier as I did not want to waste time correcting this table, but I guess I will have to waste some time on it anyway.{Raza0007 | Talk} 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have updated and improved the missile table. I have removed the inventory column as the exact inventory is not disclosed by Pakistan nor is estimated by any independent third party. The "other name" column was not needed. These missiles are known by the names listed in the table. The information is not referenced here as a reader can get that on the missiles respective pages. This will keep the table simple. The respective missile pages are under going improvement and are going to be properly referenced in the coming days. Enjoy.{Raza0007 | Talk} 09:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing AQ Khan's crimes
A user recently edited this article to make A.Q. Khan look innocent of the crimes he committed, and otherwise to make Pakistan look innocent and autonomous in its nuclear program. These changes are largely inaccurate (for example, Khan was convicted of stealing URENCO designs), and should be corrected. I'm marking this point because I don't have time to do this now. NPguy (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Can u provide a link to edits you are referring to please, I am rather neutral in the whole matter. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Khan was wrongly convicted of stealing URENCO designs. The court later found him not guilty because sufficient proof was not available to convict him of the stealing. i have thoroughly read the article and then have corrected the Anti-Khan Propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhayer171288 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not aware of any significant doubt that Khan stole the centrifuge designs from URENCO, nor of any reason to believe he developed them on his own. I am not an expert on the literature in this field, but I wanted to alert others to what was going on.  Some view him as a national hero of Pakistan, but they should not be enabled to bias the content of the article. NPguy (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * if you would have read the reference article through which the information is given in the wikipedia page "http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm" you will find that "his conviction would be later overturned on a technicality" . i am asking you would a court let loose a man who stole Nuclear secrets to create a Nuclear Bomb. i think not. if you read this interview of a.q. khan on this matter and if you research a little yourself, you will find like me that most of it is media propaganda just to spice things up. and i am correcting this media propaganda so that the world can have unbiased information. i mean think for a minute Netherlands court freed a person who had the capacity to create a N-Bomb?. if some one leaks Nuclear secrets the thing that happens to them is the same that happens to Mordechai Vanunu. i hope u know who Mordechai Vanunu is?? Zuhayer171288 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Khan was tried in absentia. He was never in custody and therefore was not "freed."  Overturning "on a technicality" generally implies that the conclusion was correct but proper legal procedure was not followed.  I stand by the statement that he stole the designs. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Ofcourse you "stand by the statement that he stole the designs". and with that you must also believe Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). and you must also believe that the US is not is Afghanistan for "OIL and DRUGS" etc. MAN WAKE UP stop believing in the MEDIA PROPAGANDA. i have got no idea whether khan stole something or not. but i know that the "MEDIA" spices things up so that more people watch/read their news. if you are willing to let the media tell you what ever it wants you to hear then GO ON. but if you Know like i do that MEDIA IS being USED TO TELL PEOPLE LIES then it becomes your & my responsibility to tell the people the truth. as i said before i don't know whether khan stole something or not. But the reports are very clear the case was "Overturning on a technicality" and people are not freed on a technicality in Nuclear Secrets related cases. This technicality is not just some small mistake made by the lawyers that ended in khan's release, this technicality is concocted by MEDIA so that the news can be made spicy because the bottom line is that the court ruled in favour of khan & that is explained in the interview of khan (http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2009-04/artikel-2009-04-interview-khan-english-version.html)" & as always you are always free to correct me...Zuhayer171288 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You seem to be missing two key points. First, Khan was tried in absentia.  He wasn't there for the trial.  He was never jailed.  He was never released.  Second, in an honest justice system, people are freed on technicalities.  Do do otherwise is to encourage abuses of the law  by the authorities.  In addition to stealing Urenco centrifuge designs, Khan ran an international criminal enterprise to traffic in centrifuge technology, spreading it to Libya, Iran, North Korea and who knows where else.  It's hard to imagine a single person who has done more to undermine international security by profiting from the spread of sensitive nuclear technology.  He has contradicted his own statements so often that I would not trust anything he says. NPguy (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * you seem to be forgetting that both of us are talking.... you dont consider answering my queries and start your writing as if i have not contributed anything. If you have already made up your mind about truth/justice, good/bad, happy/sad things, discussing further with that attitude is not going to lead this discussion anywhere .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhayer171288 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a conversation. There is no point in responding to your attacking rant on unrelated topics (Iraq, Afghanistan). NPguy (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in number 20 but I think it's abundantly clear that this article is biased - I understand he is a national hero, but this is an Encylopedia. Zuhayer, your comments are ridiculous and clearly biased. It is well known and verified that A.Q. Khan stole designs in '76, and proceeded after the establishment of the nuclear program in Pakistan to sell those designs to North Korea, Iran, and Libya, at least. It is a complicated story but nonetheless this is an encyclopedia, and it should mention all this controversy with relevant citations. This article stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.134 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban has nuclear weapons?
"Manmohan Singh had warned US president Barack Obama that Pakistan's nuclear sites in North West Frontier Province areas that are Taliban-al Qaeda strongholds are already partly in the hands of Islamic extremists.". Hence the debates in DC. Should this be included? Biophys (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This a unrealist and bogus statement that Manmohan Singh gave. First of all Nuclear weapons aren't easily to fire. Second of all, Nuclear weapons aren't like Stinger Missiles to be fired in a seconds. It takes time to be activate and lock the target. I am aerospace engineering student, as in my information, nuclear war heads are pretty big and heavy; unlike stinger missiles. They can't be fire off easily. The Indian Prime Minister is surely talking nonsense bcos nuclear weapons aren't easy to developed. There may be mining fields in NWFP, but we all know that Talibans do not promote any kind of scientific education. the primary question is, are talibans nuclear physicist now? And that they (talibans) can seperate isotopes of U-238 into yellow care then convert into UF6? That's dellusional and distort.

That doesn't make sense. Pakistan's nuclear scientists are responisible more than indian nuclear scientists. Pakistani nuclear scientists work in a harsh conditions, thanks to dr. A.Q Khan. Lately, former Indian army chief did confessed that Pakistan's nuclear weapon are safe as well as their mining field. He also confessed that Nuclear weapons are monitored 24/7. In an Jang daily, he also confessed that Pakistan's has expertised in nuclear safety and that Pakistani Nuclear programme is far more advanced that India's. Manmohan Singh is stupid to be releasing that kind of statement or it's just a anti-Pakistan statement to increase resentment toward Pakistan.

 * Obviously, this is not about production of nuclear weapons by terrorists. This is about firing nuclear weapons by precisely the same personnel who would fire them in the case of war, however on the order from terrorists, who either overrun the facility, or penetrate it through their agents. Are these facilities safe? Obviously, they are not, because US Congress spent billions to keep them safe, but still has no idea how the money are spent, judging from the publication in New York Times.Biophys (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And please do not tell about big and heavy warheads. They have tactical nuclear weapons on the basis of plutonium.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, yes, the facilities are safe. Pakistan's SSG Commandos monitored these faciliies 24/7. It's not easy, more like impossible, to transfer sensitive nuclear technology, per say, tactical nuclear weapons to be export to terrorists. Lets not forget that every nuclear weapon is computerized; need a electronic key trigger, and requires a sufficient computer facility to set and lock the targets. Talibans aren't that educated to understand the computer technlogy. This is dellusional that terrorists will get nuclear weapons to kill us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.163.224 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is not whether the nuke facilities are safe or not or if they are monitored 24/7. I am sure that the pakistani government is as much concerned about the safery and handlinf of it's nuclear arsenel as anyone else in the world. The point is more on the line that, the areas in which the nuke facilities are physically located are controlled (partially if not totally) by the Taliban. Ultimately it is humans who are trained to launch the nuke warheads and they can be managed by force as well. Including the Indian primeminister's statement would not have anything to do with propoganda as it was part of many statements issued related to the conditions in the Swat valley and NE frontier provinces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist101 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Terrorists 'have attacked Pakistan nuclear sites three times'. Biophys (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alqaida and Talibans have repeatedly tried to target Pakistan's nuclear installation in 2007 and further year. Pakistan's Wah Lab (Nuclear weapon development factory) has been attacked by using a suicide bombers. But Suicide Attack was failed. Pakistani forces intercepted the suicide bomber; the bomber exploded himself in the huge public crowd before the Pakistani Commandos captured him. Also, Pakistan's Jang also claimed that the Pakistan nukes especially missiles are stored in a different compounds so then even if terrorists captured; they still wouldn't have idea how to put things together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.143.129 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cruise missiles
Someone has wrote that the Pakistanian cruise missiles could deal with relative ease with anti missiles systems such as the Patriot (I assume he/she meant the PAC 3 type) and Arrow 2. Well, let me tell you, any kind of cruise missile could easily do it as those systems are specifically built to deal with high altitude, rapid ballistic missiles and no one pretend to use them agains cruise missiles. However, the AWACS system could easily track most kinds of cruise missiles, the SM-6 could intercept them with relative ease and there are a range of means -from UAVs to Lasr weapon which is almost operational that could deal cruise missiles. So, I think that the reference redundant.--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy Deletion
I have deleted the below sentence as it is factually incorrect.

"However, Pakistan, like India and Israel, is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and, consequently, not bound by any of its provisions."

India and Israel are not the signatories of NPT along with Pakistan and North Korea.

 * The statement was factually correct. North Korea is a signatory, having signed, acceded, and subsequently withdrawn.  Being a "signatory" means that a country has signed.  After acceding (or ratifying), a country becomes a "party" to the treaty. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "cold test" mean?
The articles states that Pakistan made a number of cold tests of nuclear devices. But the phrase "cold test" is never defined. The article should state what it means, or link to some other article that contains an explanation (e.g. do you just pretend that there is a nuclear explosion, or do you try to use cold fusion, or do you perform a test in the winter, etc). 90.232.166.122 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A cold test is the actual detonation of a complete nuclear bomb except instead of enriched uranium, in the middle of the bomb, you put natural uranium. So it will not go into fission. It will not acquire full power, but it is a complete bomb in all respects. What does it do? It produces a high flux of neutrons when the detonation takes place and one has to have the capability of measuring these neutrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.134.174 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Dr. A.Q. Khan? Need Section on Proliferation Concerns
Seems pretty ridiculous to me that this article makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the scientist who admitted to selling technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. I don't feel like writing the insert but I'll provide some news links. The section entitled "Security Concerns of the United States" (as if it's purely an American concern) needs to be drawn out and renamed. The bias on this article practically stinks in my opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/world/a-tale-of-nuclear-proliferation-how-pakistani-built-his-network.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/world/asia/05pstan.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan

The second link is Khan admitting to giving centrifuges to North Korea. Patently absurd that the Pakistani article on WMD makes no mention of nuclear proliferation. This was big news, and it still is as Clinton is now visiting Pakistan with a new aid package and these concerns were brought up directly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world/asia/20diplo.html?ref=world

anonymous ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.134 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * There is a brief mention of A.Q. Khan in the section on the development of nuclear weapons. The main gap is that the section on uranium infrastructure is too short.  That section needs to be beefed up and Khan should feature prominently. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@ NPguy - Right. What I meant to say is that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding him. He is certainly mentioned but not anything related to what we are talking about.

Again, I'll reiterate that proliferation concerns and the history of A.Q. Khan is prominent in diplomatic relations even today, and this article is clearly whitewashed. What prompted me to comment is that this article has been in this state for seemingly a long time. Needs to be fixed or there needs to be a warning about bias. ````anonymous

Abdus Salam and Nuclear weapons?
Should we mention Professor Abdus Salam's name in the beginning of the article? I think it would be appropriate so. Abdus Salam was in Pakistan during the midst of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. As Science advisor to the President (Later Prime minister), he was aware of every inch of the program, there is no way he would have not known. Also, Abdus Salam had brought hundreds of Pakistani physicists and mathematicians to Pakistan who played a integral part in the development of the program. Salam, also had arranged the Multan meeting, and was involved in every inch and every step when this program was created. In other word, Munir Ahmad Khan led the laboratories and nuclear fuel plants, but the original research was supervised under the guidance of Abdus Salam as he was serving as the Science advisor to Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. So, it would be appropriate to add or even mention Abdus Salam's name in this article, which I already have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.4.31 (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I see no reason to mention Abdus Salam in this article. He was science advisor to Bhutto, but opposed the nuclear weapons program .  He was also a professor at Imperial College and Director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy at the time, so he was not spending much of his time in Pakistan . NPguy (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You should get your facts right before making a claim. Here is Dr Samar Mubarak Mand's admission that Dr Salam was leading the effort to build the bomb from the very outset. Do Tok on ARY News - Dr. Samar Mubarakmand -28-08-2010 - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7gvEDYlDI Watch from 8:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.122.112 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 * This video is not in English. Is there a transcript? NPguy (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Abdus Salam opposed the weapons program then why would he call his students from Italy to Pakistan, to developed the designs of the nuclear weapons? If Salam was an opposition to the nuclear weapons, then why would he arranged and managed the Multan meeting where it was decided to develop the nuclear weapons? If Abdus Salam was against of weapons program, then he surely would've alarmed the international community about the nuclear weapons program. Why wouldn't he break his silence and be quiet for such a long time? Clearly, a science advisory is a prestigious job title, a person (if we imagine the nuclear weapons development period) almost knows every inch of the program. Salam was involved in the program where he had led the Theoretical Physics Group along with his students whom he supervised their Ph.Ds in Great Britain. This all changed when Parliament signed the controversial bill declaring Ahmadi Muslims as non-muslim. He left the country in protest. But, made a short trip to Pakistan when General Zia had awarded him the nation's high civil award. So, don't you think Salam's name should be mention?? Program started in 1972, but Salam left in 1974. The period between 1974 and 72' are considered very early and starting stage of the program. Does that statement makes sense to you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.4.31 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * What evidence do you have to support the claim that Salam called his students from Italy to Pakistan to work on nuclear weapons design? PAEC had legitimate peaceful programs in addition to supporting the weapons program, and one of the links I cited says stayed or was kept out of the weapons-related activities.  There is a lot to theoretical physics that has nothing to do with bombs, including the entire field of theoretical particle physics in which Salam made his career and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Evidence are provided in the article. True, Salam had peaceful and mystic personality. Salam had prolific career in theoretical physics, and pioneered or/associated with all aspect of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is one of unique field of physics, it is like a big universe that studies everything that exist in nature and beyond nature. It ranges from fundamental physics to advanced nuclear physics. Abdus Salam did not design the weapons, but his students did who studied under him. Salam just had supervised the research of Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) and coordinated the research that was undertaking by the PAEC until 1974. He had motivated scientists from academic university of Pakistan to come to PAEC. With his friend Munir Ahmad Khan, he had done a groundbreaking work in the nuclear development. Still, he, and other PAEC academic scientists, are not given credit for their contribution at all. Since Abdul Qadeer Khan had took everyone's credit and posed himself that he designed and led the entire programme, in spite of his academic discipline. Because the sensitivity of this programme was very important during that time, Salam did not confirmed his role even after his death. Until 1999, when his students such as Riazuddin gave interview to Shahidur Rehman who wrote a long book under various chapters. The author wrote a lot about Abdus Salam's contribution to PAEC from the peaceful development to weapons programme. At some point, he has praised Salam but on the hand, he has written biased work on Abdus Salam. I hope I satisfied you with my discussion.

 * I don't see any actual evidence in the latest edits that Salam had any direct role in Pakistan's nuclear program. Theoretical physics is not the same as bomb design.  The fact that he had students who moved from one to the other does not mean he was part of the program.  If he were alive I suspect he would be insulted by any attempt to give him "credit" for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. NPguy (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical physics is not the same as bomb design, that is true. Abdus Salam did not design and developed the bomb, it was not his role nor he participated. There are no evidence presented that provided the fact that he was involved in the designing of the weapons. Now, I am going to provide you evidence or atleast, you consider them as evidence.

Case-I, During 1971, Abdus Salam was in Pakistan when he saw his country going in a war with an intense rival India. Like others, he witnessed his country ripped apart into two pieces. It was a difficult time for Pakistanis, and everyone was demoralized. So, what Salam did is, he managed a meeting of scientists that he participated and met with Bhutto on 20th January, 1972. The same year, he called his students from ICTP and they formed Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) directly reporting to Salam. Salam led this division but had no role in the development of the first fission weapon. It was kept in secret until many years and TPG scientists were remained silence for many years. All he did was to led the establishment and groundbreaking work of this division. Later when he left, the TPG was led by his students and directly report to Munir Khan. As of today, this division is still active dedicated to carry out research on Astrophysics and plasma space physics.

Case-II, Here are the evidence that listed below. These links will provided Salam's contribution to Pakistan's nuclear energy programme as well as his hidden role in the development of the weapons programme.

.
 * In this photo below, is Salam seen approaching to Bhutto to shake his hand. This is taken in KANUPP-I reactor November 1972. It was issued by the PAEC in 2006.

 * KANUPP Video— In this vintage video, in which Munir Khan is receiving Bhutto and Salam. As Khan is giving tour to Zulfi Bhutto, Salam is seen in his right and giving assistance to Bhutto.
 * See Multan Conference, in page 14, Abdus Salam is seen sitting with Bhutto on his right-side. This is the meeting where Bhutto announced the starting of nuclear programme.

 * Salam as PAEC member, in this journal, his pupil student Riazuddin provided details of Salam's contribution in nuclear energy programme.

 * See the section The Wah Group: Designers and Manufacturers of Pakistan’s Nuclear Device, provided an evidence that Salam was presented in a meeting chaired by his life long friend Munir Ahmad Khan, when he established the DTD, the directorate that built mechanics of the bomb. Note, the word Bomb was never used.

 * And, finally the Long Road to Chagai, the book written by Shahidur Rahman. The author has provided large details of Abdus Salam's contribution to both energy and weapons programme. What I suggest to you, is getting this book online, in order verify the facts in recent edits. They are written in a book under many chapters. I did not make these fact by myself, nor can I. Even the NTI's profile country also mention Salam's presence and involvement in the programme's early years. Here is the ISBN for this book:

Shahidur Rehman, Long Road to Chagai, pp157, ISBN 9698500006.

 * At the end, the last sentence what you have wrote, is completely based on what you think, mate. Salam was a very private and quiet man. Salam was Pakistani, a proud one. Despite the calls were made by his friends to accept the British citizenship that was offered by the HM Government, Salam remained a loyal Pakistani until his death. Salam neither would be ashamed or proud of his role in the PAEC's weapons development after he sent hundreds of scientists to gain doctorates in physics and nuclear engineering. Judging from his personality, he would rather be quiet and silence about this matter as he did in his later life. But, when he was bugged out about the programme (such as his opinion on the Chagai-I) and his role in the PAEC, Salam would have re-quote and recalled the words of Professor Hans Bethe.

''Just a few months before, the Indo-Pak war had broken out, and for the first time I saw direct confrontation with the India and Pakistan. It was too disturbing. I knew then I had to reverse my earlier position. If I did not work on the bomb, somebody else would — and I had thought if I were around Los Alamos I might still be a force for disarmament. So I agreed to join in developing the programme. It seemed quite logical. But sometimes I wish I were a more consistent idealist.'' I changed this statement to provide what Salam might have said. The actual statement is read as:

Just a few months before, the Korean war had broken out, and for the first time I saw direct confrontation with the communists. It was too disturbing. The cold war looked as if it were about to get hot. I knew then I had to reverse my earlier position. If I did not work on the bomb, somebody else would — and I had thought if I were around Los Alamos I might still be a force for disarmament. So I agreed to join in developing the H-bomb. It seemed quite logical. But sometimes I wish I were a more consistent idealist.

''Professor Hans Bethe, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 166. ISBN 9780691049892.''

In the end, I am resting my case. Because Salam was a peaceful person and a prolific theoretical physicist. It doesn't mean that he had no sense of how to developed the weapon. Furthermore, even the major and the prime Manhattan project' scientists were theoretical physicist. And they had advocated the disarmament after they had built one. These men did what they had to do. If they wouldn't helped the United States to built one, Hitler would have killed us. This was the same rationale used by Zulfi Bhutto when he asked Salam and other senior academic scientists to built the weapon for their own nation.

As for me, I do not advocate for the nuclear weapons. They are terrible and evil, but because they have history behind it, it is publicly written in many books. The scientists who have built these weapons for their nation should be mentioned their role based on the true facts, not based on what were their opinions and stands on weapons.

 * None of this is evidence that Salam actually worked on nuclear weapons development. The one possible exception is the book by Mr. Rehman, which you cite several times in the article.  I am not going to buy the book online to verify that it supports the claims you are making.  I would appreciate it if you could find and post a single direct quote from that book that says that Salam worked on Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.  Using Google books, I found a number of references to Salam, none of which had anything to do with weapons work.

 * I am extremely skeptical of the assertion that Salam had any role in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. It is an extraordinary claim, demanding clear evidence, which has not been provided. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He had no role, and it has been said over and over. He made contributions in the energy programme. That's what the links are saying. That's what the recent are pointing out. I don't know what else you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.105.21 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Here is Dr Samar Mubarak Mand's admission that Dr Salam was leading the effort to build the bomb from the very outset. Do Tok on ARY News - Dr. Samar Mubarakmand -28-08-2010 - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7gvEDYlDI Watch from 8:42.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.122.112 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 * The article was recently edited extensively to assert and insinuate that Salam had a major role in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. If this is false, those edits should be reverted or extensively cut back. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

foreign assistance
indians keep putting in foreign assistance however when anyone puts a foreign assistance section in the india and WMD article, they keep deleting it. Do something about it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

partnerships
In the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article it states that N.Korea had exchange partnerships with Pakistan. perhaps we should mention that Pakistan exchanged nuclear technology with missile technology.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

cruise missiles
No mention of cruise missiles reverse engineered from American tomahawk missiles accidentally dropped into Pakistan. Should be added.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  15:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan's nuclear weapons program – Per WP:UCN --Relisted. Red Slash 09:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the move is twofold, the usage of WMDs in the title is not neutral, and is usually associated with rogue states, the other reason is that Pakistan has developed Nukes only, and not "weapons of mass destruction", WMD is a buzz word which covers all manner of chemical weapons as well. A quick look on GBooks shows the majority of sources call it what it is, a nuclear weapons program. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRITERIA, specifically consistency with other members of . --BDD (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nuclear weapons are the quintessential WMD. NPguy (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I think an article split would help if this move is not carried out. Red Slash 09:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this move per consistency with, as pointed out by BDD, but I have a feeling something does need doing to the whole set. I am not a fan of naming articles "A and B" - such titles fail WP:PRECISE because they're just a conjunction of topics, similar to Tom Cruise and apples, or Brazil and brazil nuts, without telling us why those things might be connected. Interestingly as well, we have an article Nuclear weapons and the United States which is apparently phrased the other way round. Is that because of alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2014
 * Oppose But would moving all such pages to "WMDs of X" for all countries X work? Hcobb (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Amakuru is correct that WP:AND is usually a word to avoid in titles, but the nuance of these topics is such that the more vague "and" titles are helpful. Weapons of mass destruction of Poland, for example, would be a bad title because, at least based on our article, Poland has never had WMDs. The actual title Poland and weapons of mass destruction describes Poland's overall relationship with WMDs. And while this is getting pretty pedantic, "Weapons of mass destruction of Poland" could also refer to weapons specifically designed for the mass destruction of Poland. Not a likely misunderstanding, I grant you, but clarity is important. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

China's assistance on lead
The sentence about China's assistance for the nuclear program should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the foreign assistance section since MOS:INTRO requires leads to be a brief summary of the whole article. The sentence is also cited by a reliable source. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2007/may-2007/bhutto-was-father-of-pakistani-bomb/?locale=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113203148/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517101729/http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp

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 01:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120112210540/http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20140810150255/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510025046/http://india.nydailynews.com:80/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack to http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145342/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145333/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108072529/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712233956/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C28%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\28\story_28-2-2006_pg7_24
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222163116/http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2 to http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2
 * Added tag to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/11/25/story_25-11-2008_pg3_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604034533/http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml to http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721120736/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24

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) 22:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

British English
This article was recently edited to change U.S. to US throughout. This is supposedly the British English standard. I have two questions. (1) Why use this standard for the name of the United States? (2) How do I know that this is the British standard? Where can I find that? NPguy (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Any search engine should get you the results, outside of America nobody uses full stops in acronyms something that should also be obvious from using a search engine. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Did China conduct a nuclear test for Pakistan in 1980?
As of 2020-03-28, the section of this article on Alleged foreign co-operation says, "The former US officials have also disclosed that China had allegedly transferred technology to Pakistan and conducting putative test for it in 1980.

Does that Times of India article exist? I looked and could not find it.

Even if it exists, is it credible? Unless it cites another publication that seems credible, I think that sentence should probably be deleted, and the rest of that section rewritten so it makes sense without that sentence. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

growing size and largest yield?
You need citations for your edit to the infobox changing "Largest yield test" from "25–40 ,,," to "65 kt in 1998 (PAEC claim)"

My review of these references:
 * Ref. [1]: I cannot find "yield" nor "24", "40", nor "65" in this reference. I deleted that reference from this item.

CONCLUSION: The numbers "25–40" seem adequately documented. The change to 65 kd is not. I therefore reverted the change to 65 back to 25-40.
 * The second and third note cite different yield numbers.
 * The fourth says, "The Pakistan Government authorities puts up the yield range from 20-~40kt".

You also need citations for changing "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles from "150-160" to "170". The current references similarly support the earlier numbers, not your change. I therefore reverted that as well.

Your claim that "And according to Global Fire Power report Pakistan is swiftly growing their nuclear asserts and by year 2025 they can become world's third largest nuclear arsenal" needs an explicit reference. If it's there, I've missed it. Given the questions I have about the other changes, I'm reverting this one also without further research. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian customs detaining a Chinese vessel
Why do you say the actions of Indian customs to detain a Chinese vessel with "dual use" equipment is not notable?

I see two issues here:
 * 1) Detaining a foreign vessel like this seems highly irregular, bordering on an act of war.
 * 2) Attempts by a nuclear weapon state like Pakistan trying to obtain such "dual use" equipment seems like it's highly relevant to a discussion like this about its WMD program.

I've spent much of the past week revising the Wikipedia article on Richard Barlow (Intelligence analyst) and adding a section on "Violations of the NPT" to the Wikipedia article on "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". A major concern that has surfaced in my recent research on nuclear proliferation is assistance the US provided to the Pakistani nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s. Barlow and Robert Gallucci have both said that Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons today if the US had not illegally exported many items like this, in violation of US and international law, with the active encouragement of high-ranking US government officials. Moreover, those technology transfers were essential in allowing Pakistan to build “the world's largest atomic black market", without which North Korea would not have nuclear weapons today, and Iran would not have a substantive nuclear-weapons program.

I plan to revert your deletion of that edit.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree with DavidMCEddy, unless we want to make a page specifically for Pakistan and proliferation/counterproliferation this is the most appropriate place to put such information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Interdictions like this are not that uncommon. Trying to piece together bits of evidence like this into a coherent narrative amounts to WP:OR original research. NPguy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Nobody is piecing anything together, there is also only one source so it literally can’t be WP:SYNTH. Interdictions like this are not uncommon, but what about that means they shouldn’t be covered if reliable sources cover them? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The question is whether this information in itself is significant enough to put in this article. It's a single data point, like the aluminum tubes in Iraq, that is not necessarily of any significance to the subject of the article. NPguy (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Seventh or eighth?
The Wikipedia "List of states with nuclear weapons" lists 9 countries. Israel is number seven if you accept the 1979 Vela incident as being a nuclear weapons test conducted jointly by Israel and South Africa, which seems the be the prevailing expert opinion. There is also documentation that they collaborated in France's first test in 1960.

Whether you accept Israel as conducting a first test with South Africa in 1979 or France in 1960, Pakistan can still be classified as the eighth nation to conduce a "first test" -- unless you also count South Africa separate from Israel, which doesn't seem reasonable, especially since South Africa destroyed their nuclear weapons in the transition to majority rule.

Accordingly, I am reverting your change: I believe that the standard narrative list Pakistan as number eight and North Korea as number none. If you think differently, please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 * What sources do you have for claiming that Pakistan "became the seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapon"? See the above.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The description says Pakistan was eighth to test, which presumes the Vela incident was a test. That is a disputed conjecture. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * What sources do you have for claiming that Pakistan "became the seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapon"? See the above.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The description says Pakistan was eighth to test, which presumes the Vela incident was a test. That is a disputed conjecture. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, the claim that the Vela incident was a test of a nuclear weapon is a disputed conjecture, as is the claim that it was not.
 * This is not a US criminal court where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous decision of a jury. This is more like a civil judgment, where the decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence in the opinion of a majority of a jury.
 * Permit me to suggest further that we are not talking about a relatively trivial matter like a so-called "free trade" agreement: The threat of nuclear war is the only global catastrophic risk that I believe has a high probability of ending civilization.  As noted in Time to the extinction of civilization, Daniel Ellsberg and other leading figures have said that as long as the world maintains large nuclear arsenals, it is only a matter of time before there is a nuclear war.  "Beard and Holt (2019) at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge estimated a 0.6 percent chance of a nuclear war in the next year. As noted in the section on this below, that is roughly equivalent to estimates of 21 and 30 percent of a nuclear war in the next 40 or 60 years, respectively."

 * In addition to estimating the probability of a nuclear war based on the published literature, I have modeled nuclear proliferation. It stretches credibility to suggest that nuclear proliferation has ended:  It is much more likely to continue until something makes it effectively impossible for anyone to make more nuclear weapons for a very long time. This in turn implies that the threat of nuclear war is increasing over time, which suggests that the estimates of the probability of a nuclear war given in Time to the extinction of civilization are probability conservative.  Ellsberg claims that a nuclear war will almost certainly be followed by a nuclear winter lasting years during which 98 percent of humanity will starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner.  Prominent climatologists suggest that a "minor" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would likely produce a "nuclear autumn" during which a quarter of humanity will most likely starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner.
 * Please excuse: This background is not directly relevant to the current question.  It is offered to explain the reason I'm concerned about this.  For more on my concern about this, see Time to nuclear Armageddon,  which is a video and companion narrative of a presentation I made at the the 2019 Joint Statistical Meetings.  If you care about the future of civilization, I humbly beseech thee to give more consideration to the alternatives.  (By the way, my recent "Confirmation bias and conflict" is a discussion of human psychology and political corruption, which summarizes an important part of my worldview, developed over the past quarter century of research in a broad range of public policy questions.  Comments welcomed.)  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Peak stockpile = 150-160 warheads?
On 2020-07-19T13:53:22 and again 2020-07-21T20:05:04 user:192.164.14.51 changed the "Peak stockpile" and "Current stockpile" both from 160 to 200. On 2020-07-19, I checked the reference and saw a number 160, so I reverted the change. Today, when I checked, the SIPRI website did not offer me the same summary that I remember from a couple of days ago, and it is pushing me to subscribe. Nevertheless, they allowed me to look at part of their report. I found that they reported 150-160 warheads for Pakistan, not just a single number. I didn't find them giving different numbers for "Peak" vs. "Current stockpile". However, they did say, "Pakistan’s nuclear weapon arsenal is likely to continue to expand over the next decade". I think it's unlikely that Pakistan's "Current stockpile" is less than their "Peak", so I made the two numbers the same. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is a source deprecated?
On 2020-08-09T18:22:39 you deleted the following:

You wrote, "Deprecated source".

Why is this source deprecated? I can't find the remaining source. It seems to have disappeared from the web. Anyone familiar with the politics between India and Pakistan should know that nothing published in India about Pakistan should be accepted at face value. However, it still seems useful to know that Indians seem to have indicated concern about the threat of escalation of the India-Pakistan arms race.

I'm reverting your deletion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We will eat grass
An editor recently deleted a purported quote of Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto "We will eat grass," etc. Though the whole quote may not be genuine, at least part of is famous and genuine and should be highlighted somewhere in this article. I did a little digging found several references but none with enough specificity to cite. Can someone find a proper citation and put the quote in proper context in this article? NPguy (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

need ref. for 2021 estimate
Can you please provide a complete reference for your updating the numbers of warheads in Pakistan's "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles?

I cannot fine "(2021 estimate)". Even with that, I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the reference to SIPRI --. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is a highly respected source for information like this. They should be cited in this article.

If you have another source that you like better, I suggest you include that source in the same.

I look forward to seeing your addition of a complete citation. In the meantime, I am reverting your edit.

Thanks for your efforts to make the "sum of all human knowledge" more freely available. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that claims Pakistan tested a true thermonuclear weapon?
There is no foreign source available that claims Pakistan detonated a staged thermonuclear or fusion weapon. Disputed and doubtful claims should not be stated here. Anupom.001 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Its complicated subject because Pakistan had tested a boosted-fission devices using HEU and Pu-239. Boosted fission are type-of-fusion devices but they are not really fusion unlike Castle Bravo or Ivy Mike. It is well understood that since Pakistan has knowledge of boosted fission technicals and are able-- its their policy not to test given the smaller area they are in. User talk:PeerBaba (talk) 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Worst page
This is by-far the worst page the wikipedia has published. It is more written with conspiracy theories and rumors than actually what it is. The page is also politicized, and it is also based on rumors rather than fact. This page needs major overhaul and clean-up. User talk:PeerBaba (talk) 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Is there any specific claim made in this article that is not adequately supported by a credible reference or is contradicted by some other reference you believe is credible?
 * If yes, please mention it here or modify the text so you think it is better.
 * Realize, however, that Wikipedia pages represent a consensus of the different editors who have tried to make this article better. FYI, I just found 204 notes and multiple other references. "View History" > "Page statistics" reports over 1,000 edits by 361 editors.
 * If you make major changes that contradict source(s) that others find credible, you can expect such changes to be reverted. In such situations, it's best to discuss your concerns here, describing the deficiencies you perceive and how you think they would best be improved. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything in this article is based on POV (for example-- in plutonium section, A.Q. Khan telling politicians something that he believes it not true). Russian estimates on how many people are working in the program (intelligence assessments are just assessments-- they are not based on true proposition but mere facts which we know can be false. Iraq war?), or that Israeli intelligence operations to sabotage the program. If such is true, then it should be added in foreign relations between Pakistan and Israel (headlines such as "conflict of interest"), not in this page. If you look at the pages of India, UK, US, Russia, and others, the information given is related only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), not what others think or politically incorrect statements. The introduction also vilify M.A. Khan's role in favor of A.Q. Khan. A lot has been written based on POV and biased opinions by western and Indian sources.

Thats why this page needs major overhaul, it needs major reconstruction. Delivery mechanism should be re-written because most are based on U.S. expert of what "they think".

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Cawl

Cawl is a Welsh dish. In modern Welsh, the word is used for any soup or broth; in English, it refers to a traditional Welsh soup, usually called cawl Cymreig (literally 'Welsh soup') in Welsh. Historically, ingredients tended to vary, but the most common recipes are lamb or beef with leeks, potatoes, swedes, carrots and other seasonal vegetables. Cawl is recognised as a national dish of Wales.

History
With recipes dating back to the fourteenth century and prehistoric culinary roots, cawl is widely considered to be the de facto national dish of Wales. Cawl was traditionally eaten during the winter months in the south-west of Wales. Today, the word is often used to refer to a dish containing lamb and leeks, due to their association with Welsh culture, but historically, it was made with either salted bacon or beef, along with swedes, carrots, and other seasonal vegetables. With the introduction of the potato into Welsh cuisine in the later half of the 18th century, it became a core ingredient in the recipe as well.

The meat in the dish was normally cut into medium-sized pieces and simmered with the vegetables in water. The stock was thickened with either oatmeal or flour and was then served, without the meat or vegetables, as a first course. The vegetables and slices of the meat would then be served as a second course. Cawl served as a single course is today the most popular way to serve the meal, which is similar to its North Wales, equivalent lobsgows. Lobsgows differ in that the meat and vegetables were cut into smaller pieces, and the stock was not thickened.

"Cawl cennin", or leek cawl, can be made without meat but using meat stock. In some areas cawl is often served with bread and cheese. These are served separately on a plate. The dish was traditionally cooked in an iron pot or cauldron over the fire and eaten with wooden spoons.

Etymology
The word cawl in Welsh is first recorded in the 14th century, and is thought to come from the Latin caulis, meaning the stalk of a plant, a cabbage stalk or a cabbage. An alternative suggestion is that it is from Latin calidus, sometimes already in Classical Latin shortened to caldus, meaning "warm", as this is the source of Spanish caldo, with the senses of broth or gravy. The second suggestion seems more likely because of the sense, but in favour of the first theory, it is true that the one of the reflexes of Latin AU can be AW in Welsh, while the short A of calidus would normally give A.

title: Cawl


text:
Yasuda Zenjirō

Yasuda Zenjirō (安田 善次郎) was a Japanese entrepreneur from Toyama, Etchu Province (present-day Toyama Prefecture) who founded the Yasuda zaibatsu (安田財閥). He donated the Yasuda Auditorium (安田講堂) to the University of Tokyo. He was a maternal great-grandfather of Yoko Ono via his adoptive son, Yasuda Zenzaburō (安田善三郎).

Early life
Yasuda Zenjirō was the son of a poor samurai and a member of the Yasuda clan in Etchu Province.

Zenjirō moved to Edo at the age of 17 and began working in a money changing house.

Career
In 1863, he started providing tax-farming services to the Tokugawa Shogunate. After the Meiji Restoration, he provided the same services to the new Meiji government. Yasuda profited from the delay between the collection of taxes and their forwarding to the government. He greatly magnified his wealth by buying up depreciated Meiji paper money that the government subsequently exchanged for gold.

Yasuda helped establish the Third National Bank in 1876. Later, in 1880, Yasuda set up the Yasuda Bank (later the Fuji Bank, now Mizuho Financial Group) and the Yasuda Mutual Life Insurance Company (later merged to form Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance), which he organized into a zaibatsu holding company. In 1893, the Yasuda zaibatsu absorbed the Tokyo Fire Insurance Company (renamed the Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company, now Sompo Japan Insurance).

Yasuda was among the best financiers that Japan had; however he was not adventurous and hardly expanded the business beyond finance. Most of the industrial houses associated with Yasuda were actually those that Asano Soichiro (the founder of the Asano zaibatsu) started, whom Yasuda trusted and provided loans to. More accurately, therefore, they belonged to Asano zaibatsu and were merely affiliated to Yasuda Zaibatsu.

Philanthropy
In his later years, he donated the Yasuda Auditorium to the Tokyo Imperial University and the Hibiya Kokaido hall. He owned a lot of land in Tokyo which was later used as Yasuda Garden, Yasuda Gakuen, and Doai Memorial Hospital.

Murder
Yasuda was assassinated in 1921 by nationalist lawyer Asahi Heigo because Yasuda had refused to make a financial donation to a worker's hotel.

Legacy
Yasuda’s adopted son, Yasuda Zenzaburō (安田善三郎) is the maternal grandfather of artist and singer Yoko Ono, the widow of musician John Lennon. Allegedly, Lennon, on seeing Yasuda's photograph for the first time, said "That's me in a former life", to which Ono replied "Don't say that. He was assassinated." Lennon would later be murdered in 1980.

title: Yasuda Zenjirō


text:
AICR

AICR may refer to:
 * American Institute for Cancer Research, an American-based organization
 * Association for International Cancer Research, a British-based organization

title: AICR