Talk:Akhtar Hameed Khan

Facts About the Comilla Model

Akhter Hameed Khan wrote (with much public angst) much in the 1970s about problems with the Comilla Model, which was unravelling in front of his eyes and eventually collapsed altogether. This article has suggested that the Model was a great success in microfinance. I have made some corrections in fact, inserting some of Khan's quotations (and the quotations of other observers) related to this matter and the true significance of the Comilla Model.

The Comilla Model, and Dr. Khan's contributions by pioneering it, were significant, but mainly for the negative reason that its failure turned microfinance practitioners in Bangladesh (including Dr. Yunus) off the cooperative model and towards a much more centralized microcredit delivery structure for 30 years. Dr. Khan was a fine leader and the vision behind Comilla has not died, but this should not obscure the facts. Hopefully these correction will help take this article another step towards 'FA'. Brett epic 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons this article lost GA is that over the time many insertions were made without any care to the section contexts or MoS. NPOV is welcome, but your recent insert copies half of preceding para plus cit. Pls see if you can improve it, while I rework the article. --IslesCape^Talk 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing here I wish to improve. It is not a recent insertion; it was written last year and summarizes the results of major revisions to Comilla Model I researched and wrote last summer. The passage vanished a couple of days ago; you gave no indication of why you removed it. Since it is important, factually accurate and essential to the balance of the article -- and probably too to the prospects of this becoming GA again and even FA later -- I have reinserted it.Brett epic (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort key? (and name?)

I shortened "Akhtar Hameed Khan" to "Khan" throughout the article, except (of course) in the lead sentence and in publications about Khan. This had already been done to some extent by other editors; I just made it consistent throughout the article. So the puzzle: why is the sort key, for categories in the article, this:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Akhtar, Hameed}}

rather than this:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Khan, Akhtar Hameed}}?

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comilla Model, Revisited

Why would an editor whitewash this article, and distort NPOV, by removing evidence of the fact that the cooperatives formed by Khan under the Comilla project failed? Khan acknowledges this failure openly in his own writing, and it is very evidently the case on the ground in Bangladesh today. This fact is no embarrassment to Khan; he was fine practitioner in spite of it, and the legacy of learning from the Comilla movement is a lesson in agricultural microfinance for the world as a whole and the cooperative movement in particular. But to describe the cooperatives as 'successful' as was done by the same editor, is simply inaccurate. It is also an affront to the reputation of successful cooperative movements around the globe. If the editor would like to know more, please refer to the article Comilla Model.Brett epic (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

I've moved the GA-relatd review comments from the talk page to GA1 and GA2, respectively, for archiving. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've just completed a thorough copyedit of this page following a request from one of the editors on my talk page. A few things to note:

• Wikipedia house style recommends that we don't include titles, such as "Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan". It is evident from the article that Khan had a doctorate.
• Don't include personal observations in the article, such as noting that "despite the shock" of his mother's death Khan continued his studies, or noting that his mother was a "sympathetic person". I am sure she was, but that is a subjective judgement and not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It's also worth keeping in mind Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.
• Articles ("a"/"an" and "the") help readers make sense of written English. Please use them where appropriate. This Wikipedia page may help if you're not sure of the grammatical rules. Or, for a clearer explanation, look it up in a copy of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.
• Try to be consistent about spellings within articles: e.g. it is fine to have "programme" or "program", but not both. I've attempted to standardise the spellings in the article to standard British English, which seems more appropriate for British India/Pakistan during Khan's lifetime.
• This is a very informative article. Congratulations all!

-- TinaSparkle (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work Tina. --IslesCape^Talk 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image

Has anyone tried to get a free image of this person? I'm not saying an article shouldn't be featured if a free image can't be found, but perhaps there should have been some attempt to find one? I upload a lot of fair use photos myself and think it's more important to get a photo first and then worry about trying to hunt down a free one later, but I think featured articles should at least be using a photo that we know the author of. Richard001 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nasim Yousaf

Nasim Yousaf is a non-notable academic and a close relative of Khan. He has written extensively about his grandfather and uncle, although he appears to have no formal training in history etc, his books are effectively self-published and his real life occupation is as an exporter of textiles. We need to be very, very careful about using him here as (perhaps unsuprisingly) his research is not great and he adopts a highly hagiographic position. There are also various IPs and registered users here who are most probably meats or socks of him - I am attempting to formulate an SPI for this but the intermittent nature of their edits makes it somewhat awkward. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured status

As mentioned above, the article is largely sourced to Yousaf's self-published biography, which does not appear to meet featured article criterion 1c for "high-quality reliable sources" because it contravenes Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. On minor notes, a short section like Death should be merged to comply with criteria 1a (prose) and 2b (structure) and the article text should not contain external jumps such as those in the Legacy section. DrKay (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced quotation removed

An IP today turned a sentence of the lead section into a quotation but did not provide a proper citation to the source. I have just removed that sentence because (a) it is unsourced and (b) if it is indeed a quotation then it is likely to be a copyright violation without full sourcing. I've no idea whether the IP was correct to turn the thing into a quote or not, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Akhtar Hameed Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008160542/http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=854 to http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=854
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041015013844/http://www.serendip.tv:80/akhter.htm to http://www.serendip.tv/akhter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akhtar Hameed 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119190323/http://ahkrc.net.pk/ to http://www.ahkrc.net.pk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akhtar Hameed 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810065350/http://www.ipsnews.net/note_award.asp?idnews=27134 to http://ipsnews.net/note_award.asp?idnews=27134

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FA

As noted by Sitush and DrKay above, most of the article is sourced to a self-published book by a relative and the article and award lists resembles a CV in places Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you; reliability of a source depends on context. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8 § Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8 § Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)