Talk:Surya missile

Contradictory

I noticed that this page was started by Ajay ijn. However Ajay was the one who questioned the very existance of the Surya Missile Program, as seen here in the IGMDP talk page. In fact Ajay tried pushing for it to be removed/deleted. With due respect, may I ask why should an article be dedicated to this questionable program? This notion was earlier supported by both Sniperz11 and myself. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This Surya missile is something that has foxed me as well... I mean, except for Richard Speier's ramblings (despite increasing evidence that he's wrong), there is no other information on the net. By any standard, its a beautiful AfD candidate. However, I'm not sure whether we should delete it. As it stands, this is one of the few places where the Surya missile has been discussed. We could make the article clear in its assertion that there is no proof of the existence of such a program, and that Speier's are the only places where the Surya is mentioned.

But thats just a thought - I'm still quite strong in support of deleting it. I think Ajay is also in favor of this course; he just created this page to split it off from the IGMDP page, to make deletion easier. Sniperz11_@^CS 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fact there's no, if not little indication from the article that this program is mere speculation. There's no official statement on it (as you said in the IGMDP talk page). A program with no official statement on its existant makes it mere speculation! Anyway we'll wait for Ajay to have his say.  S3000  ☎ 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Ajay left Wikipedia? His contributions show he hasn't been here for sometime. Perhaps then the two of us should decide on what to do.  S3000  ☎ 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No... he's still here. Been a bit busy I guess. I had a chat with him today about this, so he'll post a reply later.

Anyway, we kinda came to the consensus (of two) that since there aren't any reliable sources of information on Surya (Richard Speier's speculative paper having no cites or basis for information given there), and all information is speculative and obsolete in light of the events of the past 2 years (Agni-3 and announcements regarding Agni-4 and the future of Indian missiles), the best way would be to delete this page, but include a one paragraph gist in the Agni missile page, under the history or development section. This page can then be redirected to that sub-section. The gist should be clear that this was just a speculation and no official comment was ever made about it.

What do you think?? sounds good?? Sniperz11_@^CS 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, If you two have reached a consensus then carry on as agreed. I've got no objections. However please note that I'm not against the existance of this article (i.e. I'm not lobbying for its deletion). All I'm saying is that it would seem to a person non familiar with this subject that there's really such a missile in development. It doesn't indicate that it's merely speculated. There's no harm in keeping an article of a high profile speculation like this (there are a few speculated Chinese programs too), but it has to be clearly identified as a speculation (with no official word on it).

But if it is to be removed, then its only fair to include a small section on this Surya programme in the Agni (or whichever) page. We cannot completely rule out the whole programme. Perhaps it's delayed or shelved or still in development, who knows?! There'll be no smoke without fire.

Bottom line: I'll go by any decision you two make.

Oh ya, and by the way Sniperz, I've left a message in the Template talk:Indian missiles page. You'll be the correct person to attend to it. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I agree... the fact that its only speculation has not been clearly stated. P.S. I've replied on the Indian Missile template talk. Sniperz11_@^CS 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

"There's no harm in keeping an article of a high profile speculation like this (there are a few speculated Chinese programs too), but it has to be clearly identified as a speculation (with no official word on it)." I couldn't agree more. and please don't forget that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Thank you. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Guyz i am sorry i did not reply. BTW The reason I had to keep Surya Missile Page is because some so Called Experts (pro-MTCR, Anti-Indian Lobby) have speculated existence of Surya Missile Program. Even though Indian Ministry of defence or any credible source from India never stated anything about Surya, because of those reports speculating existence of Surya, we will be forced to allow that in wikipedia. ofcoz we will mention it as speculation. Surya is an figment of imagination, It is supported by another Speculation that India might modify or use the technology of its Space Launch vehicles.--Ajay ijn (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really not a hoax?

Report on "Surya Missile" was first published in 1995 in "The Nonproliferation Review, Winter" p. 160. This probably is just another farce by the Politicians. India is in no position to develop ICBM even now, much less in 1995 (with the pressure from USA). It's just another demonstration of US's sensationalistic scaremongering. It's a hype nothing more. Indian authorities have never, not even for once, admitted that they are building ICBMs behind closed doors and no other report supports the claim of "The Nonproliferation Review". Come on! :) Brendon is here 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the {{hoax}} tag with {{disputed}}. The references on the article appear to be reliable. If indeed the entire "Surya missile" was a government-orchestrated hoax as you claim, then this article should be rewritten to be about a hoax, which is different from an article that is a hoax. See WP:HOAX for a better explanation of the difference between "hoax article" and "article about a hoax". The hoax tag is meant for hoax articles, not articles about hoaxes. Note that this comment is meant to be a technical interpretation of Wikipedia policy as it pertains to the hoax tag on the article; it is not meant to confirm or refute any of the claims made in the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Surya and Agni-VI

Can someone please explain what is the difference between Surya and Agni-VI? If this is just another name for Agni-VI, we dont need a separate article.--Arado (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Actual scale-down model surfaces

Have a look at this. I think we should wait before contemplating any kind of deletion of this article.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 05:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)