This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
I have reverted this.
-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.
-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.
-User completely removed the fact that Khan was a Harvard graduate from the article, even though it was sourced and presumably relevant.
-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". [1] Khan claims he was asked to identify her stepping off a plane in April by the ISI. [2] 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
myst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
I have reverted this.
-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.
-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.
-User completely removed the fact that Khan was a Harvard graduate from the article, even though it was sourced and presumably relevant.
-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". [1] Khan claims he was asked to identify her stepping off a plane in April by the ISI. [2] 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
myst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).