Talk:Amjad Mohammed Khan

Questionable Sources

The Seattle Times article says that "ex-husband (Dr. Amjad Mohammed Khan) might be behind her disappearance", interviewing Siddiqui's family a month after she left the country and "disappeared" (was arrested). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean that comes form the Seattle Times, April 24, 2003? What is the title of the article? Can you please give me a longer quote. I found an article from April 24, 2003. And it looks a bit different for me. So i would appreciate a longer quote. IQinn (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Brandeis article is written by Elyse Seener, who holds an MA in International Affairs from George Washington University and a BA in Political Science from Brandeis University.[1] (replace the - with an x to view article) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be true but she based it on a questionable source "...appear guilty according to PHXNews.com". PHXNews.com looks like a dead webpage for me. IQinn (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because a site is defunct, doesn't mean that any news organisation that ever mentioned is irreputable. PHXNews appears to have run from 2002-2008. In fact it appears David W. Ogden was a reporter for PHXNews...so if the Deputy Attorney General...yeah, restored the reference. Brandeis is a reputable source, Seener is a reputable source, nothing in the article is fringe or controversial. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement is based on the PHXNews. So who is behind this website? Does it have editorial overview? Who wrote that article? Do you have a source that David W. Ogden was a reporter there? I would not ask so much.

Coming back here. Do not start an edit war again. You are, because you have reverted back without waiting this discussion to be finished. IQinn (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment your bizarre personal attacks, you have nominated this article for deletion, then campaigned to remove every footnoted citation you can, claiming that you don't like the journalist, or there is no online copy of the article, while nominating the article for deletion. Assuming it's going to be deleted, let people see the full article -- if it's not deleted, come back here and argue over the references. But don't edit-war removing improvements people make to the article you want to delete. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"I claimed i did not like the journalist" Go up and read. I never said that! In fact that is a personal attack of you because you can not verify the things you claim. Go up and fix it. Instead to of attacking me. No i won't wait until deletion discussion is over. Now is the time to fix it. So people can see if there is substance behind it. IQinn (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions:

You mean that comes form the Seattle Times, April 24, 2003? What is the title of the article? Can you please give me a longer quote. I found an article from April 24, 2003. And it looks very different for me. So i would appreciate the answers to my questions and a longer quote for verification. Thanks IQinn (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You requested the name of the article, I gave it to you. You requested the exact quote from the article which supports the detail citing it. I gave it to you. If you want the full article, I suggest that you - as others have done - go to a newspaper archive, library or similar resource - and find it for yourself. I am under no obligation to type out entire resources for you - please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Offline sources. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the article but i can not verify your quote in this context. So please give me a longer quote so that we can verify that. IQinn (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert

The same person who nominated this article for deletion (and never touched it before that) now appears to be removing footnotes, adding extreme partisan language, and degrading the article's quality to influence the AFD votes (which are currently 4-1 Keep).

Rediculous uncivil accusation. I have worked hard for hours to make the article compliant with the sources that you have added. And maybe somebody has voted for keep because they saw my version. My editing here is not about deletion it is about increasing it's quality. I am just blown away by your uncivil accusations. IQinn (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this.

This was absolutely unnecessary to blindly to revert all my work. And to start a war. Absolutely uncivil. Sure there are always point to discuss and i would never claim to have the final answer. You should have worked on my version instead of reverting. IQinn (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-User changed "They divorced after having three children together, over disputes in childrearing, and Khan's later characterization of Siddiqui as "too fiery" and ostensibly wanting to move to Bosnia or Afghanistan" to "They divorced after having three children, over disputes in child rearing." which seems too simplistic, and no reason is given for removing his direct quotes about why they split up.

That may be "simplistic" but that's what the sources do not provide more. In fact if you look closely you have combined two different sources. They did not divorce because of the second part of your sentence. That comes from another source. And this is called "original research" and not allowed. IQinn (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-User changed the wording "claims that he was responsible" to "alleges Khan of using" which is improper usage of the word "allege". User also watered down "Mother in law claims X" to "Newsite claims that mother in law claims that X" seemingly just to throw it in doubt.

That's out of context and wrong. Later more about this section. IQinn (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-User completely removed the fact that Khan was a Harvard graduate from the article, even though it was sourced and presumably relevant.

You should read the edit summary to this edit. It may be relevant but we can not verify that he is a "Harvard graduate" The source does not say that he has graduated or got any degree. Check your source. IQinn (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-User completely removed In April 2003, his ex-wife was arrested in Karachi after returning to Qaid-e-Azam International Airport from an overseas trip, and was being questioned by the FBI. U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that she was "essentially in the hands of the FBI now". Khan claims he was asked to identify her stepping off a plane in April by the ISI. from the article. Obviously the fact he claims to have played a role in arresting his ex-wife, an alleged member of al-Qaeda, is relevant and well-sourced.

-User changed "family have launched a lawuit" to "His sister in law Fowzia Siddiqui is constantly attacking him in the press " which is incredibly partisan and POV wording. The "constantly" just makes it over the top WP:WEASEL in addition. We are not here to judge which side is right or wrong, only that there is a dispute and present both sides of the story.

-User added "they made clear that there was no information of any wrongdoing and that the FBI just would like to locate and question him" which seems irrelevant since everybody on the FBI list has that designation. It's like saying "The FBI listed him in their Top 10 Most Wanted...but reminded website viewers that he was to be presumed innocent".

I would encourage somebody campaigning for the article's deletion to not radically change the article in order to get it deleted...let the AFD see the article as it stands, not as you want it to be seen by them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User has now added the {{disputed}} tag, I would suggest in poor taste, because he removed the claim that Khan graduated from Harvard stating "remove because it is not mention in the source", even though the source clearly says married [Mohammed Khan], a Harvard-trained anesthesiologist. I would suggest this is continuing bad-faith removals of information which are properly sourced - by the same nominator for deletion mentioned above. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whow!!!. Another uncivil attack against me. I would you highly recommended to read WP:civil before doing another post like that. It is quite impossible to work together like that. I suggest you first apologize because you are absolutely wrong with your bad-faith attack. IQinn (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent use of diversionary tactics to try and overcome the fact it was pointed out you removed a properly cited fact (multiple times), lying or mistaken about whether it was in the source, which it definitely is - as seen on the Boston Herald's own website. If you want to suggest that you will not engage any further until you receive an apology...I am happy to hear that. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed?

"This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (November 2009)", this tag was added by the same person who added the AFD...except, looking on the talk page, I can't see any disputes over factual accuracy. I would appreciate if somebody other than myself and Iqinn can weigh in on whether this tag is merited - since it seems like overkill to me. But if another user agrees that "there is a factual accuracy dispute" (regardless of which side is right/wrong), then it can be re-added. But I simply don't see any disputes over factual accuracy. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? I just have a look at the page here and you see that it could be more disputed. Read discussion one and two on this page. I have added this tag and i will add it again now. Sure when you find some uninvolved people who tell me on this page that there is no dispute than i am happy to see it gone but there is no doubt that there are many fact disputed here at the moment. IQinn (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you list those facts whose accuracy is disputed? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1)The first discussion about the source is unsolved. 2) Is he a Harvard graduate?... Shall i list all the points we are discussing above? That would not make sense i am going there now and write my comments. The points are all there. And i will also add additional once. IQinn (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, and upset that you won't list what you believe to be the "factual disputes" other than whether he graduated from Harvard, which has multiple citations, and I haven't seen anybody provide any evidence - or even argue - that he did not attend Harvard. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit stunned by making big changes to the article now without even engaging in discussion with me here on the talk page how we fix the article. You start a war and constantly change and revert the page without engaging in constructive discussion. All points are in the discussion above and i am still waiting for you answers there. Stop edit warring.IQinn (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

These are my changes to the article, with the exception of the detail about Aga Khan university which were added by (I believe) Geo_Swan. You have not (so far as I have seen) added a single fact to the article...and are just complaining that I have added 32 footnoted and properly sourced facts to the article...without asking your permission to add them? I never touched the article until I saw you add a PROD notifier to the talkpage of User:Steven Russell, whose talkpage I have apparently watched since 2006 because I left him a message I'd hoped to receive a response from. (my only interaction with him, it seems). When you took this article to AFD, I voted "Bad articles need to be fixed, not deleted. Bringing out the full details of how he came to be assumed to be a terrorist himself, over a period of several years it seems, before being cleared, is an easily surmounted task. Tagged for rescue." and came here to clean up the article, only to be stymied by you insisting that you have the right to add obnoxious templates, remove citations and entire footnoted paragraphs from an article you want to see deleted. If all this leaves you "a bit stunned", I am sure you are not alone. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You have all permission in the world. It is all teamwork here. Sure you have added sources. But it is not only the amount of sources is importend. They must laid out and connected properly. I have worked very hard and put a lot of thought in the way how to present the sources. There are at least 50 changes and issues that i have addressed. And it was clear to me that my version would not survive AfD. (:)it was to good) And it did not matter to me. I have just tried to make it a good structured fully verified article. I did not write it to make it bad looking for the AfD. That is so wrong. Go back to my version and have a closer look. There are a lot of good ideas. And it would have been a good start for further improvement. Anyway i give up on this single article and you can do what ever you like and all other people are invited to have a look at my version sure far away from a good article. But it was an improvement over your last version. Anyway there are a lot of other articles here and i leave this one to you. After this much harassment from your side i feel it is impossible for me to work further on this article with you. IQinn (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that your version of the article merits a "Keep" vote on the AFD, may I ask why you did not withdraw the nomination, or even change your own voice clambouring for its deletion? You want the "not your version" deleted because he's not notable, but under "your version" he is? Doesn't that seem like a strange claim? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not paraphrase me! And do not put things out of context. Paraphrasing is uncivil and should be avoided. I am still waiting for you to fix the problem with the source. First posting on this page page. You should also put the tag back were it belongs and wait until we have achieved consensus. Cheers IQinn (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I expressed a similar concern to edits this nominator made to another article they had nominated for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  Teaming up for your personal attack against me. Two editors who have written the most of the terrorist section together and have difficulties to accepted input for other editors. Constantly accusing other editors of bad faith when they can not make there point in the content discussion. Same for you back to that talk page and fix the content issues instead of personal attacks and edit warring. Cheers IQinn (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no {{fact}} claims on the article, I am removing the {{disputed}} tag until such time as any tags are added suggesting there is a factual dispute. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whow!!! still edit warring! While i was writing here on the talk page to solve the problem. IQinn (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The same person who tried to delete the article, add superfluous header templates and remove sourced facts...is now doing the same shit over again, claiming "the article does not mention Dr. Amjad Mohammed Khan at all", when I have politely approached him on his talk page to point out that the source (Ward, Jon. Washington Times. "Suspect in terror plot still at large", June 16, 2003) very clearly says "Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, 33, is also listed by the FBI as someone with key information and one who might have been part of the gas-station plot." I have reverted his edit, only to have him edit-war rightback out, still claiming that the article does not mention Khan. Part of me wonders if this a stupid mistake related to the fact the same user decided to remove my "offline" citation and replace it with the WT's online archive of the article which has two pages and clearly says "Page 1/2" at the bottom and perhaps he has not read the second page of the online version. In this case, I would urge him and all readers to please assume that somebody adding a citation is accurate, and if you do not see the words you're looking for - perhaps the problem is with you, not with the source or the other editor. I would also remind User:Iqinn that this is not the first time he has claimed that offline sources don't exist, or have been faked, only to be proven wrong. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just might remind user User:Sherurcij on WP:CIVIL than this posting is anything else than civil. Have a nice day IQinn (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I will remind you to read the policies instead of just linking to them, especially focusing on "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues with pic

Looking at it, the located writing should imo be removed from the pic, am I right in thinkng that he was not charged with anything? I will look at it later as I am off out. Off2riorob (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just sought, located, and then released. I don't know if it presents a blp issue as it is accurate, but have no problem at all with it being cropped if someone can do that.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Amjad Mohammed 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/drkhan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606113421/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-3-2003_pg7_56 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-3-2003_pg7_56
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/04/03/19137-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213111801/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_1-11-2004_pg7_47 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-11-2004_pg7_47
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301155344/http://media.www.thejusticeonline.com:80/media/storage/paper573/news/2004/01/27/News/Brandeis.Grad.Student.Wanted.For.Questioning.By.Fbi-589063.shtml to http://media.www.thejusticeonline.com/media/storage/paper573/news/2004/01/27/News/Brandeis.Grad.Student.Wanted.For.Questioning.By.Fbi-589063.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm

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) 20:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)