Talk:A. Q. Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] A Q Khan's response

Reference 7 mentions that it was quoted by William Langewiesche in "The Wrath of Khan," The Atlantic, November 2005 but clicking on the link takes us to some obscure website which does not seem to be authentic. I am going to remove these if the reference link is not changed.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)