Talk:Abdul Qadeer Khan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Press coverage

This article was cited by UK's Guardian paper. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source.

Nice! Only in the online version, though; the paper article doesn't provide any links. -- ChrisO 11:30, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, wonderful article.

Someone should probably add in that he now has been diagnosed with cancer - or did I just miss it? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5274826.stm?ls Jan

whats the resource of this information

i'm doubtful about

In late October 2001, the Pakistani government arrested three Pakistani nuclear scientists, all with close ties to Khan, for their suspected connections with the Taliban. Two of the scientists were subsequently said to have admitted having had talks with Osama bin Laden.

could someone provide any souce to it?Wisesabre 19:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

YES : Benjamin and Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror, pp. 203-204 Paul L. Williams, The Al-Qaeda Connection, pp. 110-111

US Connection?

Why did the world best inteligence service, the CIA, kept a blind eye to Khan's activities. Was it because Pakistan was helping the proxies in Afghanistan against the former USSR?

Qadeer's activities was visible to all, but the question is that is he really important to waste time with him ? I think not, he was just a show person, used by Government of Pakistan and American Agencies to play their dirty games, the real person was M. Qadir Hussain, who actually develope and invented the real process, that helps Pakistan and America to develope their Atomic Programm! strange, but true, why, answer can be found on the US Patent Offic's web site where the Patent's number 5417944.. all questions will be solved.

First question: yes, probably. Pakistan has been very important geopolitically for the past forty years and that is most likely why it has not come into any real problems despite all of this stuff. As for the bit about the patent: I'm pretty sure that is not a design which is used by proliferators (it is a liquid centrifuge; most uranium separation is done with gaseous centrifuges). I don't know of what use the liquid one would be for but my guess is that it is for enriching very small samples. --Fastfission 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The process is in liquid form, it is correct, but why it is so important, because in normal gaseous centrifuges method, enriching uranium, is far more difficult and constly and in many thousand steps!, by this method, the uranium can be separated in just on single stage and with 100% purity, where gesious method gives almost 99% purity. It is why, during the period from 1970 till late 80s when American and other government was so sure that with the normal method Pakistan will never be able to enrich much uranium to develope a tactical weapon, but when they learned about this process and prooved that it is as simple and easy that country like Pakistan (a relatively poor country) can have many tactical nuke devices, they stoped aid and put santions. Now to your second guess, that only a small amount can be get, it is also not correct, with this I think a well equiped labortary can get as much as they want. Recently US Government signed an agreement with Indian Government to give India Civilian nuclear technology, you think why Pakistan and China have concern, it is simple, this could be handed over to India, an arch rivel of Pakistan, it is just a simple message for pakistnies that, well it will too long I guess.. phippi46 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that nobody seems to use the liquid method for large-scale enrichment, and there is probably a good reason for that that one comes up across if one actually tries to. Not being an engineer, I don't know what that reason is, but I bet if you asked at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science they would take a good guess. To my knowledge nobody has ever plausibly alleged that the Pakistanis used a liquid method; they did in fact upgrade their centrifuges to Pak-2s at some point which were much more efficient than their earlier ones, but they were still gaseous. My suspicion about why gaseous is used is because it is easier to chain it together with other centrifuges as part of a large system. Your claim of it being done in "one step" sounds nonsensical -- the reason it takes thousands of gaseous centrifuges is because of the amount of gas you have to put into it all (no matter how efficient your centrifuge is, you can't enrich more U-235 out of the sample than is actually in it). --Fastfission 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also not an expert on subject, I tried to read between the lines, for me it is clear not to mention this method, being used by Pakistanies just to keep pressure away from them, because like said earlier with this cover no one could ever belief them, and treat them normally. Secondly it is also quit possible that nobody ever used this method before Pakistanies, or may never thaught to be possible that is why there is no effort in this matter. Hence after reveling this to us patent office, the scope and reality comes in light.. I think it is always good, as a government not to tell truth.. because it will bring no benefits to them.. phippi46 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well alright then. I find it pretty unlikely that this would be somehow purposely kept secret despite the fact that a paper was granted for the process in 1995. The U.S. Patent Office is not usually where foreign powers store secrets. In any case, though, there were apparently a few stories about this in the New York Times in 1995, where Hussain was claiming that Khan stole the design from him. A number of experts quoted in the article said the liquid process wouldn't work, though. But it is interesting nonetheless, and I thank you for pointing the story out to me. --Fastfission 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing i like to add here, that in order to get a US Patent Office Patent, you have to proove your claim and they just can not give you a patent with false claims.. specially in this subject, I do not belief that they did not test this.. offcourse they have issued after their satisfaction and results are written in the end.. where you can read also that this process can "give 100% purity in one single step and it is much more cost effective" phippi46 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. The examiner has to believe that it is possible to work, yes, but no "proof" need be demonstrated, and examiners are usually willing to give some leeway in ambiguous situations (after all, by definition the work is meant to be beyond the "state of the art"). Apparently the head of the DOE office of declassification reviewed the patent (as they do with bomb-related patents) and decided not to censor it because they didn't think it could be used for bomb-making purposes at all. (This is from that New York Times article I was referring to above.) There are lots of things patented which don't or couldn't work at all, much less as efficiently as they claim to, such as perpetual motion machines. The parts that the patent examiners care the most about are the "claims" section, not whatever hyperbolic things the author throws in to justify their invention as being different than that which came before it (all invention descriptions sound like that). --Fastfission 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the the patent details on the website and I do not found any details in it, for me it is quit censored artical, you just read very few fruitful details of the method, I think it was censored. Secondly, your claim that the examiners are usually willing to give some leeway is just a statement without any proove, if its work like that, then the office may had been closed for long time before, why, most patents application go through a Patent lawer and these are some of the best lawers in the country, if some one just get a patent without any problem, some one can get them in court. It is not a perpetual motion machine, which according to current physical laws, not possible, so whenever a patent claim about a possible "perpetual motion machine" come for review, the examiner naturally treat it not a perpetual motion machine, while according to his physical knowledge, it is not possible. Thats is why, I think there are no patent with perpetual motion machine or may be 1 or 2.. However, about this process, how they tested or they belief it or not, i have no information, but intresting thing was not the patent request of grant of it, but the fuss was made on it, if there is no danger then why so much fuss both in Pakistan and America.. phippi46 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the patent was censored—it reads like any patent does, going into detail in some places and keeping it vague at others (patents usually try to be as vague and general as possible so they cover as many specific instances of usage as possible). This is a very well-known technique in U.S. patent practices -- if you don't believe me I'd be happy to provide references. I do not mean to underestimate the difficulty of getting a patent or passing through non-working patents, but the idea that every patentee must prove that their patent actually works is not true. I have no doubt that you could, in theory, use liquid UF4 in a centrifuge of some sort, but I doubt, as do the experts, that you can use this as a means of bomb enrichment, or that it is an efficient means for doing so. There are lots of patents for things which cannot work. Our page on perpetual motion machines has a list of a few of the patents on them (Perpetual_motion_machine#Patents). Check them out -- they read like any other patent and managed to fool the examiner (they do not advertise that they are perpetual motion machines, of course). The fuss was made because Hussain made the fuss -- after he got the patent he made a big deal about how Khan had stolen it from him, etc. --Fastfission 02:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok if it was not the method Pakistanies used, then what.. ? It is still the only Mulsim Country with nukes in hand, and a large part of this was develope was them, may be designing a Bomb may have been provided by chines. But still the question remains ? Was Pakistan able 20 years ago, with the technology available at that time with so much political and logistical problem to develope something like that. A point to mention here that they tested in 1998 urinum based devices, where India test a plutonium device. I doubt on it that the cetrefugel system was designed by Pakistanies was capable of enriching enough urenium to produce at least 10 or so devices that may be they have. Second the fuss was made by Qadir Hussain or someone else, still was noticeable. To my current knowledge he is still under a so called exit control list which allow government to block any international departure of any person. Why they are afraid him to leave the country if he is not important phippi46 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page and not a message board where issues like US intention behind a specific involvement could be discussed US has given statements (as mentioned in the article) on Dr. Qadeer's issue which proves American involvement Judging their motive behind the intention , is not the job of Wikipedia , whose purpose is to report and not to decide

Hussain 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comma Splices

This article has a large number of comma splices, at least to me. I'm going to clean some of them up. I'm not trying to add or alter content, just do some grammatical editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsword (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

fact check

I'd like it if somebody more familiar could look over Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood. I think the article has been edited by the subject of the article. Before I got to it this afternoon, it was pretty much garbage. I've trimmed out a lot of the fluff, added a few sources for some of the claims, and tried to separate some of the fact from the fiction. However, I think you'll see that it's still pretty murky. If somebody has more knowledge with the situation (especially his claims wrt Mr. Khan), I would appreciate a review. Thanks. ... aa:talk 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

User:Tahirakram has put a number of images on this page and has licensed them as PD-Self. I find it extremely unlikely that this user created these images, being that most of them are clearly from this website. I suspect someone will have to do some copyright cleanup here. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khan February 2004 confession.jpg

Image:Khan February 2004 confession.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's his name? (incl. Cat Piping)

  1. I came to the accompanying bio bcz it appeared on Cat LP to be mispiped, and i had not the slightest suspician that it is about the famous A.Q. Khan. No doubt he is widely known in at least Pakistan by 3 spelled out names, but that is not what article titles on WP reflect. His international significance outweighs his (obviously substantial) national significance, and his common name internationally uses the intials. The article must be A. Q. Khan and the full name a Rdr to it.
  2. The piping of several of his Cats with "|Abdul Qadeer]]" appears to reflect simply misunderstanding of what the piping of Cats is for. If i am mistaken in piping all his Cats with "|Khan, A. Q.]]", fix it again, but the explanation of why i'm wrong
    • absolutely must appear here,
    • probably would imply the worth of some low-profile related info in the bio, and
    • implies the need for eliminating the term "middle name" in the lead.

--Jerzy•t 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. This article should be named after his universally-recognized name in the English press. I'm going to move the article. MilesAgain (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Patent

It is quite obvious now that Mr Qadeer had used euranium extraction formula invented by Mr Qadir Hussain. The legal proceedings are now about to complete in favour of Mr Qadir Hussain. At this stage Qadeer should admit his injustice with Mr Qadir Hussain so that he could get the rights after 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.236.46 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The last section on Dr. Khan's hospitalization

The last section is blatantly copied and pasted from this article:

http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/06/top9.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.93.234 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Political problems for former president

Musharaf (sp) is no longer involved in government but near the bottom the article still reads that Khan poses problems for him. I don't know enough about the figures to clean it up successfully but someone should. 

   98.174.220.8 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Chris Giofreda

Cleanup

This section "Relationship with Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto" is written poorly, perhaps by an ESL writer. Incoherent and grammatically compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.59.208 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

it is deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.134.174 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

draqkhan.com

Ok, I have founded a website (I believe it is run by one of his close associate, public supporter or anyone else).

Abdul Qadeer Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.134.174 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

There is a cable from US Embassy on AQ Khan : http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/04/08STATE37957.html If someone could read it and maybe add informations from this cable in the article. English is not my mother tongue. Thanks.--Free French (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with intro

The article's intro has a fairly neutral first paragraph, then starts the second paragraph with "After years of home arrest..." Huh? House arrest for what? I can find out when I read the rest of the article, but if the introduction is going to mention the house arrest, it should at least say why he was arrested. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs editing

Laden with grammatical errors that confuse the story. I do not know if it is right or wrong, but I know the clear meaning is indiscernible and should be edited by an expert on the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.5.173 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Should be flagged for grammar corrections by an English speaker familiar with this subject. David Spector (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Debriefing?

This article makes a rather big deal about Khan's being called for "debriefing", and that article devotes an entire section to the subject, yet it seems to me that "questioning" would be just as accurate. Is that specific term really significant here, or is this just the result of some reporter's choice of words? LWG talk 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When someone important leaves employment, they frequently are given an exit interview or a debriefing. This gives them the chance to return keys and identity cards, and make a statement about their accomplishments and hopes for the future of the organization. "Questioning" might imply that the person was caught doing something wrong. Even if that is the case, nonprejudicial language is always best, and is here in accord with WP:NPOV. David Spector (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Updates

There are some contributors that constantly vandalize Khan's page. Such as "Known for: Stealing Dutch nuclear technologies". I request not to make these kinds of recent edits. Its just wrong and cannot be appreciate. Its simple one case "One nation's [Pakistan] hero is another nation's [West and United States] criminal". Please... Do not Vandalize A.Q. Khan's page.

It's not "vandalism" to edit an article to include opposing views on controversial points. Now, "Known for: Stealing Dutch nuclear techniologies" is definitely not encyclopedic. However, should someone quote several well-regarded books on the subject of Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons infrastructure (such as Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark's Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons or William Langewiesche's The Atomic Bazaar), there is plenty of very well-sourced, incontrovertible material to show that Abdul Qaheer Khan stole considerable nuclear technology - specialized and secret (or at least proprietary) information on how to build the most advanced uranium gaseous isotopic separation centrifuges on Earth from his employer Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoek (FDO) and their client, URENCO (a European uranium enrichment consortium). An encyclopedic edit to this article with that information would not be vandalism, it would be a very nicely-sourced edit.
And your attempt to make some sort of moral equivalency between, say, J. Robert Oppenheimer or Edward Teller and Abdul Qaheer Khan is irrelevant to the creation of an article on Dr. Khan. No one in the US nuclear weapons program stole technology from other nations in order to create a militarily usable source of weapons-grade uranium-235. Abdul Qaheer Khan is well-documented to have done so. loupgarous (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Random Thoughts

History repeats it self

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan's matter is same as Edward Teller, a theoretical physicist, where media thought that he was the father of Hydrogen bomb. But, in reality, Stanislaw Ullam, a mathematician, was the one who developed the bomb and little contribution was made from Teller. No one remembers Ullam cause he was kept in secrecy. Teller went on to Media telling everyone that Teller's originated the idea of developing that design. History repeats itself, Teller also served as technical advisor to Israeli nuclear weapons development. Therefore, he must've guided them how to build the weapons. How the fuel is produces. Which approach is best. But because it was kept under secret and Teller was a national American hero nobody actually looked into his case. Whoever did was removed from the scene. Teller also undermined J.R. Oppenheimer by calling him a communist. Teller made himself as Father of U.S. Atom Bomb Project. This is what the same approach what Khan did to Munir Ahmad Khan. Khan did what others before him did it. It is natural, people with big ego problems tend to take others achievements.

In the end, Khan still remains a national hero of Pakistan. Khan did what any nation did before Pakistan came in existence. Looking into history, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and France stole secrets from United States, they became nuclear powers. But their scientists still remains a respected and national heroic figure in their country, despite they stole nuclear secrets. In Pakistan, Khan is still seem as national hero. He still is on the national television, and still speaks openly. Please, do not make any recent edits. I have upgrade his page and no more information needed. I known people are pissed off at him, label him as thief or plagiarist or criminal or America's number one enemy, at some point. But Khan acted under the administrative guidance of Government of Pakistan, he did what others, before him, did it in 1940s and 1950s. I am not advocating for Khan and what he did, is wrong. But he has done immense services to his country that is why he was conferred with national civilian awards. We have to respect other country's [Pakistan] sentiments where Khan is seen as national hero.

—Preceding Signed by Ironboy11 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironboy, thank you for a basically good article, and trying for WP:NPOV. I hope you will welcome native English editors here to correct your minor grammatical errors. They are very noticeable in English and make the article less effective. David Spector (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ironboy11, you're wrong (a) that any comparison can be made between Edward Teller and Abdul Qaheer Khan at all, and (b) that Edward Teller stole a thing from Stanislaw Ulam. The facts are different from your understanding. While Edward Teller's role in the Oppenheimer security clearance hearings is controversial, the fact remains that Oppenheimer harmed himself much worse than Edward Teller possibly could have - Oppenheimer's circle of friends did actually include several Communists, one of whom, Haakon Chevalier, did actually try to recruit him as a Communist spy, and Oppenheimer's reporting of this fact involved a series of lies and/or factual evasions on Oppenheimer's part.
I recommend you read Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb to gain perspective on the facts of what you are talking about. Rhodes is as critical of Edward Teller as any knowledgeable commenter on the US nuclear weapons program, but his commentary, while biased and contentious in spots in his criticism of Teller (and sparing of Oppenheimer's contribution to his own fate), is founded generally in fact. Nowhere in Rhodes' indictment of Teller does he say he stole anything from Ulam - and the general consensus among serious scholars of the US nuclear weapons program is that the US thermonuclear weapon system is called "the Teller-Ulam system" because both men contributed materially to it. Sorry, that's all beside the point.
Saying "Edward Teller did this, and that's worse than what A.Q. Khan did" misses the point, too. It doesn't matter if someone did something in 1945 or 1953, the references to nuclear proliferation in this article are about what Abdul Qadeer Khan did from 1974 to the present. Balanced reporting isn't comparing what other people did in the past to what the subject of a Wikipedia article did, then suppressing facts about what the subject of the article on that basis.
Please read WP:PROMOTION and reconsider your request that no one else edit this article. Wikipedia is not a forum for uncritical praise of any living or deceased historical figure. We're not here to let you create an image of Abdul Qaheer Khan which suppresses important facts about his life, or only presents one perspective on what he did. Your national pride in Abdul Qadeer Khan is understandable. His achievements speak for themselves, and I'm not terribly interested in denouncing him - if I thought my country were threatened by outsiders and we needed nuclear weapons for self-protection, I might have done what Dr. Khan did. However, I'd like to see a balanced article that allows readers to decide what to think of Dr. Khan for themselves. They might come to the same conclusion I did.
Most importantly, A.Q.Khan's taking of specialized and secret (or at least proprietary) information on how to build uranium gaseous isotopic separation centrifuges from his employer Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoek (FDO) and their client, URENCO is relevant to an encyclopedia article on Abdul Qaheer Khan, and is well-documented in several sources. It belongs in this article. loupgarous (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed POV template

Since the only fact in question has been sourced, and there's no further controversy, I've removed the POV template. palecur 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The POV template ought to be placed back on this article, because the discussion of A.Q. Khan's appropriation of technology from Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoek (FDO) and their client URENCO is heavily non-NPOV and one-sided. It ignores the preponderance of published material, including the very well-sourced Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark indicating how Khan brought secret information from FDO and URENCO to Pakistan, and at one point even tried to recruit his former friend Frits Veerman, a technician at FDO with considerable secret knowledge of how to build uranium enrichment centrifuges, as a spy for him and for Pakistan. loupgarous (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Nominated For POV check

So far, I've found three NPOV deficiencies with this article, skimming it briefly.

1) at the very beginning, the alternate name for Abdul Qadeer Khan "Benefactor of Pakistan" is justified because "some people" call him that. That's WP:WEASEL. Unless the author can demonstrate that this is actually an alternate proper name for Abdul Qadeer Khan, that whole line ought to go, because "some people" say is weasel-wording and not adequate sourcing for that alleged fact.

2) the article's assertion in the section "Research in Europe" that Dr. Khan had been offered direct employment by URENCO (Quote:"When Urenco offered him to join the senior scientific staff there,") is wrong, according to several well-documented accounts of that period in Dr. Khan's life. The preponderance of sources on this part of Dr. Khan's life indicate he'd been employed to translate technical documents from Dutch to German and back by the consulting firm Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoek (FDO), and in that capacity gained access to proprietary and/or secret technical information from both FDO and URENCO. He hadn't been retained as a physicist, but as a translator of technical documents.

"...Urenco offered him to join the senior scientific staff there" is a demonstrably false assertion, and the source cited to support that assertion is of doubtful reliability by Wikipedia standards - one of countless articles in the Pakistani press which cast A.Q. Khan in an unduly positive fashion. What I believe happened is a good-faith mistake committed when someone didn't examine one source for its reliability. A completely honest mistake, but it can't be allowed to stand if wikipedia is to enjoy a reputation for objective encyclopedic content.

I'm getting the idea that some of the original editors think wikipedia ought to bow to concerns of moral or cultural relativism in hosting articles which purport to be true to everyone on the planet who reads them. All the attempts to say "Edward Teller did this, and that's worse than what A.Q. Khan did" miss the point. It doesn't matter if someone else did something in 1945 or 1953, this article is about what Abdul Qadeer Khan did from 1974 to the present. Balanced reporting isn't comparing what other people did in the past to what the subject of a Wikipedia article did, to justify suppressing facts about what the subject of the article did.

3) The section "Proliferation of URENCO technology" contains several assertions which are at odds with the preponderance of reporting on this episode in A.Q.Khan's career. The lead paragraph is very problematic as far as how it disagrees with the preponderance of reporting on the whole issue of Chinese-Pakistani collaboration on nuclear technology - and isn't even about URENCO technology, unless the point is to imply that Dr. Khan, KRL or the state of Pakistan transferred URENCO technology to China (an allegation I'm unfamiliar with and needs to be sourced correctly if we run with it). It reports also solely on Khan's acquittal on Dutch espionage charges on a technicality, without reporting that the charges are widely regarded to be true (which is why it matters that his acquittal was on a technicality).

As someone who has researched nuclear proliferation issues myself, I thought at first that cleaning this article up would just be a matter of re-rendering the article's grammar into standard English. I think, on reflection, the article ought to be reviewed by several editors with less emotional investment in Dr.Khan's reputation than the posters who insist we not touch the article. There are some flaws which need addressing, but on the whole the article's well-sourced. I'd like other eyes on the article to catch things I may have missed, but we can fix this article with (a) attention to the grammar and paring the word count down to reasonable levels (many things, I've noticed, are said twice or more in the space of a couple of paragraphs) and (b) vigilance for POV issues I might have missed.

I invite other editors who have some background in the technical aspects and history of Dr. Khan's career to examine this article for NPOV issues (at least). I also invite the original editors to find good sources (as defined by WP:SOURCE) for what they wish to appear in the article. We're not trying to discuss A.Q. Khan or other nuclear weaponeers here in the talk page - just how to make this article as objective and accurate as it can be. loupgarous (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar? How were these edits allowed?!

English fluency?

"Dr. A.Q. Khan, along with Navy's Vice-Admiral visited China to provided technical"

"The KRL also aided China to built the centrifuge" 

"However, after Khan was convicted in Amsterdam and later returned to country in 1986."

76.23.15.109 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit any grammar mistakes found. I've edited most of them in that section, but it still requires a lot of cleanup as the same references are used multiple times. Also, I've left a couple of grammar mistakes because I had no idea what the sentence was saying, and was afraid I'd alter the sentence meaning. Marchfur (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If something does not seem to make clear sense (it is unclear what it is saying), I think it can be deleted for being gibberish. If someone wants to recover something from that, a copy of the deleted material or a diff can be left on the talk page.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not good advice. Deleting large amounts of this article for minor grammatical infractions would leave it saying very little. David Spector (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. However, large amounts of this article deserve deletion because of WP:PROMOTION, and other WP:NOT issues - not to mention outright misstatements of fact such as Khan's being hired by URENCO as a physicist - that from a popular-audience Pakistani magazine - the preponderance of sources on that part of Dr. Khan's life indicate he was hired as a technical translator, and not by URENCO, but by one of its consulting firms, FDO (although he'd gone to URENCO facilities as an FDO employee, which is one way in which he'd been exposed to the URENCO technical information he transferred home to Pakistan). Winnowing through this article for misstatements of fact like that is a task I'm dreading, but I'll do it if no one else steps up to the plate. loupgarous (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

should we have a section about Pakistani nation's sentiments about him

With the inclusion of US , Pakistani governments views on the person and mention of his role in Pakistan's Iran's and Libya's nuclear programme, this article is still and truely far from being complete , until we include the views of Pakistanis on the person.

He might be a condemned nuclear black marketter for many , but for his own people he is still a saviour and a hero , who for them has saved them and their existence as a nation.

Though I do agree, that such a section would put this article at logger heads with the Wikipedias NPOV policy , but if we perhaps mention opinion polls on the matter conducted by reputable and respected agencies ; then this condition of the wikipedia could be ful filled. Given the fact that the Pakistani President called him a 'national hero for an ordinary Pakistani " in the press conference mentioned in the article, inclusion of this section will be a lot more easier.

I could have created a section on this on my own ,but i wanted to discuss the matter with my fellow wikipedian members before doing such a thing ; as I dont want to impose my will on this article but find a consenses on it. Hussain 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sir like you said you disagree so its mean there is a doubt on the subject. I think Wikipedia policy is clear, about personal motives and openions. If you put this section here, then it will give right for other people to add something similar here and we have whole new pendorabox. I think we can talk such things here on this page, but adding such section on this Artical will not help. phippi46 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly legitimate to have a short section on "Dr. Khan's Status in Pakistan" because that is a well-documented and notable phenomenon. Even books such as Deception by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark and The Atomic Bazaar by William Langewiesche which are on balance uncomplimentary to Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan devote considerable space to the fact that he is a Pakistani national hero.
That's a fact which belongs in the article, or perhaps even in an article of its own. One could easily imagine an article exploring Pakistani adulation of Dr. Khan (a specifically Pakistani phenomenon - there is no general American hero-worship of nuclear weaponeers in this country, even in cases such as Freeman Dyson, who has had books like The Starship and the Canoe drawn from episodes in his life become New York Times bestsellers).
But in this article, we can't justify going into any real depth on how widely A.Q. Khan is admired in Pakistan without going into how he is regarded elsewhere in the world. I can't imagine people who really like A.Q. Khan would like this article to have a section which went into detail citing how he is discussed by authorities such as Nucleonics News reporter Mark Hibbs (the man who has broken more news stories on nuclear weapons proliferation than anyone else on Earth) or by various governmental and UN regulators outside Pakistan. You can't praise Khan here without giving space to any and all notable opposing viewpoints. loupgarous (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

seperation from India

The Fastfission insist upon adding the line following the country's separation from India five years earlier for Abdul Qadeer Khan. I don't see the same rule applied for Indian leaders like former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral and Home minister Lal Krishna Advani who were born in Pakistan then migrated to India. All leaders should have the same rule or none of them. You cannot pick and choose.

Abdul Qadeer Khan was born in 1935 into a middle-class Pathan Muslim family in Bhopal, India, which migrated to Pakistan in 1952 following the country's separation from India five years earlier. .

I will be deleting this note if the rules are not defined in Wikipedia. We cannot have any arbitrary rule.

Siddiqui 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure why there's a dispute in the first place. Unless the author is implying something negative, the line is a note on historical context and a legitimate statement. While I agree that a certain level of consistency is to be expected, this is a rather minor point to quibble over. Why is this a concern to you? Moonsword 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is basically my response. There are no rules for this because we don't make rules for small and arbitrary things. I think it is a useful bit of context but I'm tired of reinserting it. I will, however, continue to insist that his place of birth be included, which some nationalist of some sort (do the Pakistanis not want to acknowledge that he, like many in Pakistan, were originally born in India? Or do the Indians not want to be associated with him? I have no idea) continues to remove without comment. --Fastfission 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fastfission - the fact that A.Q. Khan moved to Pakistan from Bhopal, India is notable and undisputed. I'd like to point out here, too, that Edward Teller, Emilio Segre, Leo Szilard, George Kistiakowsky, Enrico Fermi, and numerous other notable scientists in the Manhattan Project, and later American nuclear weaponeers such as Freeman Dyson came here from other countries. Often, this was for the same reason - religious persecution caused A.Q. Khan to go to Pakistan from India just as it caused Edward Teller to go to the United States from Hungary. Why's this a problem? loupgarous (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

POV statement removed

I removed the following section from the US reaction section of the article:

According to Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, authors of The Nuclear Jihadist -- The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World's Most Dangerous Secrets ... and How We Could Have Stopped Him, "it's high time to include Khan in the list of people who have caused death and destruction in our world, along with Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin" [1]

It is ridiculous in the extreme to compare Khan to Hitler and Stalin. When did Khan's actions cause even a single death? Yes, he passed on nuclear technology for profit to countries the United States dosen't like, but nothing has come of it. Zaindy87 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"but nothing has come of it" is not a valid argument. David Spector (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
it's also WP:OR on Zaindy87's part. NO wikipedia editor is allowed to remove a factual statement from a Wikipedia article because he's decided "It is ridiculous in the extreme to compare Khan to Hitler and Stalin. When did Khan's actions cause even a single death? Yes, he passed on nuclear technology for profit to countries the United States dosen't like, but nothing has come of it" or for any other reason but misstatement of fact. While Zaindy87 may even be correct in his assessment, it's not supported by a valid source.
Neither would it be appropriate to remove that part of the article because the Pakistani press or other promoters of Dr. Khan can be quoted to the contrary, because that section of the article was about "US reaction," not "Pakistani reaction." loupgarous (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is one way to address this issue - and that is exactly how The Atomic Bazaar author William Langewiesche, Nucleonics News reporter on nuclear proliferation Mark Hibbs and former US ambassador to Pakistan Robert Oakley reviewed The Nuclear Jihadist and its idea that we in the United States could have prevented Pakistan from getting nuclear weapons by "doing something" about A.Q. Khan. They all noted that regardless of A.Q. Khan's efforts, Pakistan would have gotten its bomb. Pakistan's national resolve was that great. The plutonium track of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program (under Munir Ahmed Khan of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission) produced a nuclear weapon without any help from A.Q. Khan at all. loupgarous (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ San Fransisco Chronicle review

Reference 10 Isn't Sourced Properly

Reference 10 reads simply "He later adopted the title or surname of 'Khan' and started to claim falsely that he was of Pashtun origins" with no actual source for that information.

We need either to find a source for the information in reference 10 or delete the reference entirely, because it's a WP:BLP issue, as well as simply not being properly sourced as defined in WP:SOURCE. I've gotten this far in cleaning up grammar to our standards, and will delete ref 10 shortly unless someone supplies a good source (see WP:SOURCE for how we determine what a "good source" is). Thanks in advance. loupgarous (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference 16 Is Used to Support Highly Doubtful Statements - Does It Comply With WP:SOURCE?

Reference 16,

Rehman, Shahidur (May 1999), "§Dr. A. Q. Khan: Nothing Succeed like Success", Long Road to Chagai, Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory: Printwise Publications, pp. 47–60, ISBN 969-8500-00-6

is used to support the following statements about Dr. Abdul Qaheer Khan which are contradicted by other reputable sources on this part of Dr. Khan's career:

"Khan joined the senior staff of the Physics Dynamics Research Laboratory in Amsterdam from a recommendation by his mentor, Martin J. Brabers.[16] His initial studies were on the high-strength metals used in the development of centrifuges.[16]",
"When Urenco offered him to join the senior scientific staff there, Khan left the Physics Laboratory where he performed physics experiments on uranium metallurgy,[16] to produce reactor-grade uranium usable for light water reactors.[16]" and
"Khan's leading-edge research in metallurgy brought laurels to Urenco, which had him as one of the most senior scientists at the facility where he researched and studied.[16] His pioneering research greatly improved the technological efficiency of the Zippe method; eventually, Urenco gave Khan access to the blueprints for the Zippe centrifuge to find mathematical solutions for the physics problems in the gas centrifuges.[16]"

Every other source I'm aware of on Khan's employment by Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoek (FDO) (which translates from Dutch to English as "Physics Dynamics Research") has him employed to translate technical documents from Dutch to German in support of FDO's contract work for URENCO. I'm not aware of any other source which says Khan was a senior scientist at either FDO or URENCO.

I'm willing to concede that this is possible, but we need a better source for this information than Rehman's book, which seems to me not to meet Wikipedia's standards. I haven't found any source outside the Pakistani press for the startling news that Khan was actually responsible for the design of the URENCO centrifuges, but I have seen quotes from letters he sent to FDO technician Frits Veerman begging for technical data on the construction of these centrifuges which indicate his knowledge of how they worked was less than you'd expect, from what Mr. Rehman writes.

I suggest that we go with a narrative of Khan's work with FDO, including his having been sent to URENCO as a technical translator, and if other sources apart from Rehman's book can be located AND they meet the guidelines set forth in WP:SOURCE, they can be included as an alternate account of that time in Dr. Khan's career. Simply leaving this part of the article as is creates a major NPOV issue.

Other editors ought to chime in on this, pro or con. loupgarous (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since writing this, I found this in a New York Times chronology on A.Q. Khan's career:
"-- MAY 8: Within one week of starting work at FDO, Khan visits the advanced UCN enrichment facility in Almelo, Netherlands to become familiar with Urenco centrifuge operations and the aspects relevant to his own work to strengthen the metal centrifuge components."
which seems to confirm A.Q. Khan actually was brought on at FDO and URENCO to contribute to the design of URENCO centrifuges. (Khan's cited graduate-level professional work in martensite alloys such as maraging steel fits with that idea.)
I'd be just as happy to have been wrong about Khan, if it means we can have an article which is actually more informative and accurate than at least two books I've been using as references. We still need some solid references saying that URENCO and FDO hired Khan specifically for his expertise in metallurgy. I'm more and more thinking this is the case, and the original editors were right, but we still need better sources for the information.
Also, I think that a more modest claim supported from the evidence that even people like Carey Sublette who use the Rehman book as a reference on Khan are citing would be better for this section of the article. No one else is saying that Khan got URENCO over any hurdles in the production of the advanced G1/G2 centrifuge series, but we have one source (the New York Times) alluding to work Khan did for FDO and/or URENCO in "strengthening metal centrifuge components."
Perhaps the original editors can provide quotes from the Rehman book (with page numbers, please, to allow rapid verification) stating specifically what Dr. Khan did for FDO and URENCO. That would be very helpful in making the article a really good reference on Dr. Khan and his activities.
Thanks in advance, everyone! loupgarous (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network, Oxford University Press, by Gordon Corera seems to be the single most informative work I've found so far on A.Q. Khan's time with FDO and URENCO published outside Pakistan. Corera says URENCO hired Khan because "it was shifting to a new German-designed centrifuge model that required the translation of reams of documents. Khan's new job was to serve as part-translator, part-scientist. Khan was fluent in English, Dutch and German and his metallurgical expertise was useful in determining what types of metal could stand up to the stress of spinning at high speeds and coping with corrosive gas."
This reflects both the story in the other references I'm familiar with regarding Dr. Khan's having been retained as a technical translator and the story in the Rehman book about Khan's metallurgical expertise being a factor in his having been hired. It's not enough to make me stop looking at new sources of information on this part of Khan's career, but it does encourage me that there are other sources which have perhaps an even more definite picture of Dr. Khan's job at FDO and Urenco. So far, this book by Corera affirms that soon after he was hired at FDO, he was sent to the URENCO plant at Almelo to see technology that, strictly speaking, he hadn't been cleared to see. It also gives a clear timeline of when, exactly, Khan is supposed to have begun spying for Pakistan at Almelo.
I'm still waiting for others to come forward with any source that has definite information on what A.Q. Khan had been hired to do at FDO and their client URENCO. loupgarous (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is getting us closer to understanding what A.Q. Khan did for FDO and Almelo. "A. Q. Khan was employed from 1972 to 1975 by the Physical Dynamics Research Laboratory (FDO) in Amsterdam, which was a subcontractor to Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland (UCN). UCN, located in Almelo, Netherlands, was the Dutch partner of the tri-national European uranium enrichment centrifuge consortium URENCO, made up of Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. While at FDO/UCN Khan worked with two early centrifuge designs, the CNOR and SNOR machines. In 1974 UCN asked Khan to translate classified design documents for two advanced German machines, the G-1 and G-2." Sublette cites the Rehman book a little later; I assume that if Khan had had a starring role at URENCO, Sublette would have mentioned the fact in the Nuclear Weapons Archive. loupgarous (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdul Qadeer Khan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdul Qadeer Khan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdul Qadeer Khan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdul Qadeer Khan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abdul Qadeer Khan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Birth date

The article has been displaying two different birthdates for some time. Which one is right? April 27 or April 1? I have changed it to merely 1936 as that is what I could see with a source or two, no month or day. talk to !dave 17:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Source 9 which may or may not be reliable says April 27 1936, this BBC article from 2004 [1] just says 1935, NYT from 2006 with attribution to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says 1936 with no month [2], the Guardian in 2009 says 1936 without a month [3], Time magazine in 2008 said it was 1935 without a month [4], NBC wired by AP in 2004 say 1935 without a month [5], Independent in 2004 say 1935 sans month [6], WSJ in 2004 says 1935 with no month [7], de Volkskrant in 2004 also gives us 1935 with no month [8]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Src. 9 doesn't look like the worst source I have ever seen, but not the greatest. I can understand if anyone felt if it seemed dubious. I think we may need to change it so that it says 1935/1936. talk to !dave 09:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong to say he has no regrets

In the legacy section, article says he has no regrets for his actions. This video is in Hindi/Urdu, but he can be seen clearly saying that he is dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him by Pakistan, and regrets working for Pakistan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6lyTGM-2Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.231.108.136 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A Q KHAN IS OUR PROUD MAHFOOZ AWAN (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Qader´s origin claim

Phatans/Fattans or Faheshtoons/Faheshah-toons love to make claims on people and stuff they don´t have, own and will never have or own just to get a bit prestige, prestige that belongs to others. Only a dead Fattan is a good Faheshtoon with 12 bullets in his head! 212.161.68.146 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal insults are not allowed on Wikipedia, keep your comments civil or you will be reported. Akmal94 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Admin help request

There is an editor Wali (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) on this page, and others related to Pakistans nuclear weapons programs, biographies etc. Like Munir Ahmad Khan, Mian, Noor, Ishrat, etc.

They almost never use edit summaries, or use misleading/incomplete ones. I have been, mostly, manually editing out their:

  • Mass over-linking,
    • Examples of my 'fixes' here, and here.
    • Summary of same: " over-linked Munir Ahmad Khan ~7 links?, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ~7, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission x 9 links!!; nuclear force is the WRONG link in this context! WP: SEAOFBLUE; use acronyms as needed "
  • 'Stupid' linking of single words, short terms to unexpected, unlikely WP pages like "… PAF's plane with [[Boeing WC-135 Constant Phoenix |special paint]] was flown…"??? See relevant Edit here. Note related edit summary.
    • And same, linking migrated to Indians in Pakistan , among other edits, here]
    • Another example: "… the bloody [[Partition of India|partition]] of India in …" Added here.
      Which looks like "… the bloody partition of India in …"
      • Also seen:"… the bloody [[Partition of India|partition]] of [[India]] in …",
        resulting in: "… the bloody partition of India in …"
    • Why not: "… the bloody [[partition of India]] in …"?
      Which appears as: "… the bloody partition of India in …"
  • Linking to the wrong subject,
  • Large numbers of needlessly piped linkes like [[rock|rock]], Not kidding! I recall a link exactly like that! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • Example here inc. [[Debriefing|debriefing]] , when [[debriefing]] works on its own, see debriefing ??
  • Poor grammar, over/incorrect use of "the", etc.
  • Arbitrarily changing, adding, language version templates, ie. British English to American English, on a Pakistan related page?

This behaviour has been going on for at least 5 years, when in June 2025 I tried to copy-edit Chagai-I, about the first Pakistani weapons test. I left lots of messages on that articles' Talkpage, on the editors Talkpage back then, and have recently left many more templated, and personal messages asking for explanations, or even just a reply, to very little result.

I see WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, WP: OWNERSHIP of pages, slow WP:Edit warring, etc. I am getting quite annoyed, to say the least, that I edit out non-WP:MOS 'crap', and they just put it back! Advice needed.

This is how I see it, and if I am incorrect in my understanding of anything here, please let me know. I am happy for my own behaviour and editing to be scrutinised in the hopes of improving Wikipaedia. Regards, 220 of ßorg 10:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @220 of Borg: I have reported said user to WP:AIV. Please follow any instructions the admins give there. Stay safe, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: Thanks, they have been given a 3 day block for WP:CIR. I have my doubts it will be effective. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pretty safe sitting on a lounge editing WP, watching TV, and YouTube. Maybe lots safer now than outside where social distancing seems to have been forgotten! 'Only' 1.5 metres here Australia. And people get pissy when you say, "Please keep your distance!"
Hey, "Corona-virus pandemic" 🤒 🤧 😷 ☠️ ⚰️ Facepalm Facepalm. Regards, 220 of ßorg 04:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Dutch

change ((Dutch)) to ((Dutch language|Dutch)) 2601:541:4580:8500:984D:A054:FA73:4D47 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK Talk 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Qadeer_Khan/Archive_1&oldid=1178336790"