Talk:Detention of Mahmoud Khalil#Merge proposal

Should Zeteo as a source be included? I could not find much information about the news organization and its credibility does not seem to be well-established. MrTaxes (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think so. Its reporting has been cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer,[https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/mahmoud-khalil-ice-arrest-columbia-protest-palestinian-20250310.html] The Patriot-News,[https://www.pennlive.com/news/2025/02/report-shows-fetterman-has-missed-the-most-senate-votes-so-far-this-year.html] Rolling Stone,[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ice-arrests-palestinian-student-activist-columbia-university-1235292509/], and The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/10/trump-arrest-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil]; it is edited by Mehdi Hasan[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/mehdi-hasan-zeteo-msnbc-1235838100/] who has a background in mainstream journalism; it has multiple authors and a clear gatekeeping process; it has not failed any fact-checks by Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/search/?q=zeteo#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=zeteo&gsc.page=1], Factcheck.org [https://www.factcheck.org/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=zeteo&gsc.sort=], or, Lead Stories [https://leadstories.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=zeteo]; it has a physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Great, looks like a reliable source MrTaxes (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = MERGED

| result = Mahmoud Khalil (activist) has been merged into this article per the consensus met in the following discussion. {{nac}} 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 19:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Should Mahmoud Khalil (activist) be merged into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil? Mahmoud Khalil's BLP was created only today, March 10, following his arrest and this may be a WP:BLP1E case (for now). Chetsford (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, his activism at Columbia prior to this is arguably not notable enough on its own, and it seems he is only notable because of his detention and arrest. Almost no secondary sources discuss him outside of this. MrTaxes (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. Khalil had already been covered by RS's in 2024 [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/09/business/columbia-protests-divestment-invs/index.html][https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/17/international-students-risk-immigration-status-to-engage-in-gaza-protests] in his capacity as a negotiator between protesters and school leaders before he began being covered again for his 2025 arrest. I believe it would be better to merge this article onto Mahmoud Khalil (activist). Badbluebus (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::For the benefit of the eventual closer, I'm equally fine with merging this into Mahmoud Khalil (activist), or merging Mahmoud Khalil (activist) to here. I just don't think we need two separate articles. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Good point, I think merging this article into Mahmoud Khalil (activist) is the best solution. MrTaxes (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think the detention article is needed (yet) and agree with merging it into the biography article. But now that it is already made, we may have trouble deleting it right now, as one could argue it and/or its future legal proceedings have a high chance of become more notable in the future.

:::I would like to warn that, while looking for sources, I found that there is another Mahmoud Khalil who is also a Palestinian activist in the same age range. He seems to live in/be based in Montreal, Canada. Make sure any sources used to cite his notability are the correct Mahmoud Khalil. This is NOT an RS, but here is an example of coverage of the OTHER M Khalil with pictures: https://tnc.news/2025/01/18/montreal-anti-israel-repeat-oct-7-attack/ Mason7512 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Concurring. I think it makes more sense for this article to be merged into the one about the person. Mirroringhim (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::None of this is in-depth coverage that would establish notability for a BLP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree that they should be merged. I don't have strong feelings about which direction the merge occurs. I suspect that there will be more sustained coverage of the legal issues surrounding his detention / possible revocation of his green card, as the Trump Admin. is threatening to do this with multiple permanent residents, and this is the first court case about it. But that can easily be addressed in either article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support merge, comment: Both articles fail NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I suggest that you add content that you think will improve it. You might also indicate what you think is being advocated (you may think this obvious, but it isn't). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support merge proposal, keep detention article Khalil, prior to this detention blowing up, does not pass WP:GNG on his own. There were hundreds of "lead negotiators" and "spokespeople" at hundreds of protest encampments across all seven continents. Each of them has no doubt has been mentioned in news coverage pertaining to the activities of that encampment; this passing mention does not make them independently notable. Otherwise, we will have thousands of wikipedia articles about organizational spokespeople simply because they give statements to the press or appear in a meeting on behalf of the notable organization. This article should stay and the biographical article should merge into this one. Flip^andFlopped ツ 03:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge but in the other direction--merge Detention of Mahmoud Khalil into Mahmoud Khalil (activist), not the other way round. The reason is that the status of 'detention' might change at any time. He might be deported, in which case he will no longer be detained but deported. Alternatively the judge might permit the case against him to proceed, but order him released pending the outcome of that case. The article name Mahmoud Khalil (activist) is a more stable name that will remain suitable no matter how the case plays out. Dash77 (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:When or if he is deported, we can change the name. If he is released from detention, the name can stay because it refers to the notable event itself (his former detention). That is pretty simple and by no means a good reason to make an article about a subject who does not otherwise pass WP:GNG independently. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment Just a reminder that as said in the header under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict you need to be extended-confirmed to participate in this discussion. I've struck comments from editors who are not EC when it's possible other editors had referred to their comments and deleted one where it was clear no one has referred to it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Presently, it appears there might be a rough consensus that only one of these two articles should exist but no consensus as to which or where to merge. So that this doesn't drag on for months, could we clarify how tolerant editors are for compromise? Pinging Nil Einne, User:Flipandflopped, Dash77, Allthemilescombined1, Zanahary, Mason7512, Badbluebus (apologies to anyone I missed.)

:A I will only accept the merger of Detention of Mahmoud Khalil into Mahmoud Khalil (activist). I will make no compromise on this point.

:B I prefer the merger of Detention of Mahmoud Khalil into Mahmoud Khalil (activist), but can tolerate the reverse.

:C I will only accept the merger of Mahmoud Khalil (activist) into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil. I will make no compromise on this point.

:D I prefer the merger of Mahmoud Khalil (activist) into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, but can tolerate the reverse.

:E We need both of these articles

:F We need neither of these articles

:G Other

Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• D for reasons previously stated Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• B but also open to arguments for E Mason7512 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• C, not qua tyrant but just because I think that’s what BLP and notability policy demands. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• C per Zanahary. That's simply based on my interpretation of BLP and GNG, but I am open to changing my mind in the future if it becomes clear he has enduring notability beyond the detention. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• C and G, serious rewrite is needed for NPOV, current wording is WP:Advocacy. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• D He is not WP:GNG as an activist. His arrest/detention/court case are notable. But more than anything, I think it's a mistake to have two articles, and I'd like a merge to occur one way or the other. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• D or E: On a personal level, I am an inclusionist who favors E, as Khalil is described in various articles and he has been involved in notable advocacy. However, I would argue that D makes sense, under the circumstances of a merger. The aspect of this has garnered most of the attention is certainly Khalil's detention, not his advocacy, and therefore The court cases that continue here will set precedents related to the First Amendment and mark a turning point in Trump administration policy; Khalil himself could easily be fully described in his advocacy within a detention page, whereas trying to shoehorn the detention into an activist living persons page sounds challenging. Given that multiple people share his name, it will also be easier for readers to find the detention page than the alternative. PickleG13 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• B Can work with the reverse. Will, however, note that if Khalil's status changes, we may find ourselves in a renaming discussion or needing a new article. I do strongly agree that, although Khalil's detention is highly, highly notable, he is not notable as an activist prior to his detention or for any other reason. Dash77 (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• C I don't think Khalil is notable at this time so don't think we should have an article on him. However his detention IMO clearly is. I don't think we have to worry about the future, as always if the situation changes we can adjust the name of the article etc. (I'd note that if the detention ends with him being released and nothing further the title is likely to be fine, if he ends up being deported then it's possible the article would need to be renamed but that's fine.) But until and unless Khalil is notable the focus should be on the detention and whatever proceeds rather than Khalil with just limited coverage on him as needed to help cover the circumstances surrounding the detention. And history shows that having an article on a non-notable BLP subject is a particularly bad idea as it tends to result in too much focus on the subject when it's unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:D. While I lean toward that name, Khalil was prominent of an activist to be the first targeted by a presidential administration; that shows significant attention on him as an activist. satkara❈talk 03:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• D, per WP:BLP1E, acknowledging that he may have been mentioned in previous news coverage of protests, but that isn't enough to meet GNG. ByVarying | talk 04:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• D By far he's most notable for the arrest. Maybe someday that could change, but that's the situation today. Prior to this arrest he was not notable enough for a page. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm involved here but I think the outcome is pretty clear and this is just a merge discussion. Every single editor in this thread is willing to accept Option C even if it's not their first choice. Since we have an open DYK nomination for this article, delaying this a long time will simply create an administrative nuisance. Does anyone object if I implement this merge? Chetsford (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:go for it! satkara❈talk 13:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{doing}} Chetsford (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Should that header be changed seeing as the Anti-Defamation League isn't necessarily Zionist? Norbillian (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:The whole infobox - aside from perhaps the date and location - is unsourced or tenuously sourced political cruft and should be deleted. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:The ADL has far more investment in defending the state of Israel than combatting anti-semitism. 75.164.148.200 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC) IP/non-EC user + WP:NOTFORUM territory. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Nice WP there govna Tooli Mars (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Detention of Mahmoud Khalil}}

Hi y'all. I recently noticed a statement from Tom Homan, Trump's "border czar" was added into the article and interpreted as him "[raising] claims that Khalil had violated the terms of his student visa, by committing crimes, attacking Israeli students, locking down buildings and destroying property", yet in the quote it says this:
{{blockquote|I mean, did he violate the terms of his visa? Did he violate the terms of his residency here, you know, committing crimes, attacking Israeli students, locking down buildings, destroying property? Absolutely, any resident alien who commits a crime is eligible for deportation.|Tom Homan}}
Homan is asking questions here. He's not alleging Khalil did those things, he's attempting to explain what his fate would be if he demonstrably committed those said crimes. I believe this is a WP:SYNTH issue, and have removed it for the time being. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have any strong opinions here. I don't think it needs inclusion. But it looks like Homan asked the questions rhetorically and then answered his own questions with a strong yes: "Absolutely". Bob drobbs (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I've merged Mahmoud Khalil (activist) into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil. As most content was duplicative it was fairly straightforward, however, please carefully review and correct any errors I may have inadvertently introduced. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I broke up the "Background" section into a bio and "Columbia Protests".

:It seemed like a natural choice after merging his bio into this article. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Good idea, that was kind-of a wall of text. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Per wikipedia norms I wasn't quite sure how that bio section should be titled.

:::I just went with him name, but I'd welcome any improvements there. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

Greer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 9, and the next day Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that Khalil could not be removed from the U.S. while the court assessed the case, scheduling a hearing for March 12.{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Spencer |date=2025-03-10 |title=Mahmoud Khalil, SIPA '24, will 'not be removed' from United States until court orders otherwise, U.S. District judge writes |url=https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/03/10/mahmoud-khalil-sipa-24-will-not-be-removed-from-united-states-until-court-orders-otherwise-us-district-judge-writes/ |access-date=2025-03-11 |website=Columbia Daily Spectator}}

Please include in the article today's ruling, that Khalil shall remain detained.

Greer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 9, and the next day Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that Khalil could not be removed from the U.S. while the court assessed the case, scheduling a hearing for March 12.{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Spencer |date=2025-03-10 |title=Mahmoud Khalil, SIPA '24, will 'not be removed' from United States until court orders otherwise, U.S. District judge writes |url=https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/03/10/mahmoud-khalil-sipa-24-will-not-be-removed-from-united-states-until-court-orders-otherwise-us-district-judge-writes/ |access-date=2025-03-11 |website=Columbia Daily Spectator}} During the March 12 hearing, it was ruled that Khalili shall remain detained, with arguments to relocate him from the Louisiana were he is currently being held also being set for March 20.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/columbia-university-student-mahmoud-khalil-hearing-deportation/|title=Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil to remain detained in Louisiana for now|publisher=CBS News|date=March 12, 2025|accessdate=March 12, 2025}} [ MyGosh789 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

:Hi MyGosh789 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, "scheduling a hearing for March 12" is not in the source, and also no longer in the WP text.

:Your CBSnews link has died, but I found it here: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/former-columbia-university-student-mahmoud-khalil-to-remain-detained-in-louisiana-for-now/ar-AA1AKNCp. I do see in the source that he shall remain detained, but I cannot find "with arguments to relocate him from the Louisiana were he is currently being held also being set for March 20". So I'll just add that the judge ruled that Khalili shall remain detained, adding "in Louisiana", because that is what the source says. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

.. and that therefore green card status can not simply be revoked?

The analysis sections seems to me to be lacking in clarity regarding the legality of the actions that have been taken (by ICE).

91.89.56.16 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:The administration is using a rarely invoked provision, of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 237(a)(4)(C), and this provision doesn't require criminal acts. But it's unclear whether it's constitutional. (One discussion [https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ here].) So I expect that this case will at least reach the Court of Appeals level, and perhaps the Supreme Court. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Clarity should be contained in [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/mahmoud-khalil-v-william-p-joyce/ Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce] (1:25-cv-01935) District Court, S.D. New York. Asherkobin (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Court documents cannot be used to make statements about living persons, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. But I will add a link to the docket in the external links section. Rest assured that as acceptable RSs write about the legal specifics, they will be added to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"The detention is the first publicly known deportation effort related to pro-Palestine activism under President Donald Trump, who has threatened to punish students and others who joined pro-Palestine protests or express support for Palestine."

But the AP article does not back up the statement that it is about punishing students who are pro-Palestinian or express support for Palestine. It does mention that it's a movement against anti-semitism.

Still it seems this should be re-written or perhaps a better source needs to be found to back up the claim? Notmicah (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've reworded that per the source, as that is the Trump administration's rationale for it. Very obviously, that can be balanced with other sources. Valenciano (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the claim which in the article and it is reflected by the source here[https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-mahmoud-khalil-student-arrested-ice-columbia-university-protests]:

"Khalil was under investigation by university officials for involvement in the university's Apartheid Divest group and helping organize a march that reportedly "glorified the attacks on October 7" and criticized Zionism."

The part about the march glorifying October 7th was removed and I reverted that change. If there are other good sources which don't support the allegations it glorified October 7th, and that it solely criticized Zionism, let's provide those sources _before_ deleting a claim made by the referenced source.

But what ever is there let's make sure it's supported by sources. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've added "allegedly" and replaced the Fox citation with an AP citation, as the AP was the original source for that info and has a bit more info about the investigation. Anyone can make a report to the Columbia U. [https://institutionalequity.columbia.edu/content/student-anti-discrimination-discriminatory-harassment-Procedures office] that was investigating, including anonymously, so we should distinguish between allegations (I don't think it's known whether he was involved with the march, though correct me if I'm wrong) and factual info (he's known to have been involved with the Apartheid Divest group). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:How about this:

:{{Textdiff|That investigation involved a number of accusations related to his involvement in CUAD, his alleged help in organizing a march which included participants who glorified the attacks on October 7, his criticism of Zionism, and other acts of alleged discrimination.|That investigation involved a number of accusations related to his involvement in CUAD, his alleged help in organizing a march in which some participants were accused of glorifying the attacks on October 7, his criticism of Zionism, and acts of alleged discrimination.}}

:It accurately represents the accusations/characterizations while including the phrase (I also recommend removing the "other" as it implies the preceding described activities are acts of discrimination). Mason7512 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete anything yet. But I took at look to try to clean it up and I'm not sure that any of the individuals giving analysis or their orgs are particularly notable. Not notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages. And the first source doesn't even make any mention of Khalil's case.

So I'm a bit puzzled as to why we're including any of this.

Moving forward, if we keep this section, I suggest we clean it up and only provide analysis from notable orgs and individuals. Bob drobbs (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Primary source information about legal proceedings (including Habeas Corpus) can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/mahmoud-khalil-v-william-p-joyce/

Direct source for:

"To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise."

I was hoping to add some citations, but this article is protected. Proceedings of the District Court, S.D. New York, are fully open to the public. Asherkobin (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

This currently says that Khalil "allegedly helping organize a march that reportedly "glorified the attacks on October 7" and criticized Zionism." This appears to be from an AP article. That article, however, says it was a march "in which participants glorified Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack." It does not specify how many participants this was, or who they were. So this could have been most of them, or just a small portion. Right now, however, this Wikipedia page distorts this articles words to claim the march itself was about glorifying October 7th. October 7th was a horrific terrorist attack, and claiming someone participated in a march directly celebrating it is an extreme and incendiary claim that should be backed by strong evidence; in this case it simply is not.

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=That investigation involved several allegations related to his involvement in CUAD and his alleged help in organizing a march that reportedly "glorified the attacks on October 7" and criticized Zionism.|2=That investigation involved several allegations related to his involvement in CUAD and his alleged help in organizing a march that included participants who reportedly "glorified the attacks on October 7" and criticized Zionism.}} Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:A good suggestion. Update made.

:I also made a few more changes to the same sentence to make it better reflect the source. In particular there was an accusation that he criticized Zionism, not that the march criticized Zionism. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thx! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The entry should state that ICE agents do not need a warrant to arrest outside of someone's home. 2601:14D:4901:F6F8:9413:37B0:CB81:AA33 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:While they don't need one in public, Khalil was arrested inside the lobby of his student housing apartment building. A Columbia University spokesperson "said law enforcement agents must produce a warrant before entering university property" - so it's not clear that they didn't need one.

:https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 satkara❈talk 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::If thats the case, then the first statement in the " Arrest and Detentention " should be edited. It states that he was arrested in his apartment, but that is contradicted later in the paragraph with the statement that his wife was given the keys to the apartment, so she could go inside. 2601:14D:4901:CF1D:F3C5:61C6:15B6:A2D2 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Good catch! Looks like @FactOrOpinion edited it. Thank you! satkara❈talk 18:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I undid an edit adding Khalil's citizenship and said I'd post here to discuss - but immediately after, saw [https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/12/marco-rubio-mahmoud-khalil-deportation/ this article] linking to the DHS document. Based off what I've read, I don't know how Khalil would have gotten Algerian citizenship so I thought it was a mistake; however after seeing the doc I reinstated the citizenship claim. My bad. satkara❈talk 00:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, it's definitely a bit strange. I don't know if any source yet has explained why he has Algerian citizenship or why the DHS think he's an Algerian citizen. But it does seem like an important piece of his bio to include, especially in a deportation case where if he's deported presumably he'll be sent back to the country he's a citizen of. Bob drobbs (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=y}}

Description of suggested change:

For legal context, consider adding a link to False imprisonment#United States to this article.

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=ORIGINAL_TEXT|2=CHANGED_TEXT}} 94.252.72.166 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{not done}} It is unclear what you want changed. Please provide the precise location within the article where you would like to add this link, so that we can discuss the merits of the change. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm opposed to this change. His lawyers are not claiming that it's false and has no basis:
• :: Removal procedures were initiated under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) ... Khalil's attorneys have called this an "obscure" and "rarely used" section of the act.
• :So it seems premature to imply it's a false arrest. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to have a sub-section on responses from Jewish organizations and individuals, we should do the same for responses from Muslim and Arab American organizations and individuals (e.g., CAIR). Or perhaps it should change to a single sub-section for groups affiliated with religions/ethnicities, including both in that section. I'm also inclined to separate out the civil rights organizations. For the individuals that we're identifying, what's the basis for naming specific people? For example, are we only identifying wikinotable individuals? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:I support removing most (probably all) of the names linked. Some can be condensed to Columbia university affiliates. I think individuals need to be notable to the topic to be mentioned. satkara❈talk 16:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Support the change to categories for civil rights orgs, religious based groups, elected officials, and maybe celebrities if needed.

::I agree we need some sort of standard for inclusion, but don't know what that should be. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We can't use court documents as sources in the article, but the [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/38/mahmoud-khalil-v-william-p-joyce/ updated petition] for a writ of habeas corpus has a lot of useful information. Some of it references RSs that could be used. Other parts don't reference RSs, but the info enables us to search for RSs that include that info. Just a heads up. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is just one week old and is already exceptionally long. Given that the deportation hearing is March 27, an almost-certain BIA appeal will occur sometime after that, there are co-occurring cases in the district court (and probably eventually the circuit court), I feel like this is approaching the point of complete indecipherability for the casual or first-time reader. Does anyone, therefore, feel strongly in favor or against a separate Timeline of the legal history of the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, focusing just on the legal mechanisms of the case and not the surrounding matter (protests, commentary, analysis, etc.) so as to simplify the flow of events a bit?

I took the liberty of preparing a draft here, but I don't want to introduce it to mainspace and prompt another merge discussion if there's a sense we don't need it.Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:How are you envisioning that this would reduce the length of the article? (That it would shorten the Legal proceedings section? anything else?) Or is your goal not so much to shorten the article's length as to make the sequence easier for readers to follow, and address the fact that this is proceeding in two courts? I expect that at some point, Khalil v. Joyce will merit its own article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I wouldn't envision actually cutting content, rather this would act as a WP:TIMELINE ancillary to this article to make it more comprehensible. Currently we have, in effect, a near-WP:PROSELINE which is not a best practice as it's intimidating for a new reader. For instance, Timeline of the Manhattan Project doesn't introduce any new information that isn't already in Manhattan Project, it merely presents a slice of information in a format that humans of average to slightly below-average intelligence can more easily digest to attain a chronological understanding. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The timeline of the Manhattan Project is several years long, so it makes sense to me that it would have its own article. For a shorter timeline, an alternative is to create a section within the current article (an example). I'm guessing that some elements of the timeline will be remain important (e.g., his arrest) and others will shortly fade (e.g., the 3/14 hearing schedule). If you either add this here or create a separate article, you may want to include a few preceding events (e.g., he enters the US on a student visa, he obtains a green card, he participates in the Columbia protests), even if only the year is known or it's instead a time range. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It feels bizarre to be comparing this court case to the Manhattan Project. One had massive historical importance and went on for years. This is an arrest and court case which may or may not have long term political impact.

::::I did a word count and it came up with 6300 words. The recommendations seem to recommend trimming at 9000 words. So how about if on an ongoing basis we just see what can be trimmed.

::::e.g. Is it of historical importance to know that he was arrested while coming home from dinner? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I expect the case to be legally significant. AFAIK, the legality of section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has only been challenged once, was found unconstitutional in a district court (by Trump's sister, no less), and was reversed on appeal for other reasons (by a circuit court panel that included Alito) without addressing the constitutional issue. I won't be surprised if this case eventually goes to the Supreme Court. It appears that the Trump Admin. is planning to use the same law to deport other lawful permanent residents. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@FactOrOpinionI don't necessarily disagree with you on any of that, but we just don't know. I also think there's a ton that we can trim and we are far away from the max article size. So I don't see any solid reason to split the article now. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for everyone's feedback. Seems like our sense is to sit on this for now and maybe revisit it in the future, if warranted. Chetsford (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

Change "taken from his home" to "taken from the lobby of his apartment complex" In legal terms this is an important distinction. There is video of his detention that can be provided as source. LycomingO360 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've changed the text in the lead to "taken from his apartment building." The arrest section already noted that, and I've added there that it was the lobby of the building. I don't think it's important to note in the lead that it was the lobby; someone else can change that if they think it's important for the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/mahmoud-khalil-speaks-with-attorneys-ice-detention Kire1975 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

CBS reports that the Department of Homeland Security says that he has Algerian citizenship and that's what's current written in the article.

Looking at this court petition, his lawyers also say he's an Algerian citizen. [https://www.nyclu.org/uploads/2025/03/Khalil-Amended-Petition.pdf].

Anyone object to simply stating this as fact now? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's fine to state it as a fact, as long as you have a reliable secondary source stating it as a fact. You can't use a court document as the source, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As of yesterday, another green card holder (German citizen) is in ICE custody for [https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-03-14/green-card-holder-from-new-hampshire-interrogated-at-logan-airport-detained no specified reason], taken while reentering the US. We'll have to wait and see what the details are, but the Trump Admin. has said that they're planning to deport more green card holders, so at some point, we may need to think about how to address additional cases. And news 2 days ago about German visitors entering legally but [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html detained by ICE] for weeks without being told why and then deported. That doesn't belong here, but I haven't been able to find an appropriate article so far, so if anyone has a suggestion, please say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:No specified reason, but there is this and it doesn't seem necessarily related to his political views:

:"Schmidt had a misdemeanor charge for having marijuana in his car in 2015 ... He missed a hearing about the case ...and had a DUI ."

:So I don't know his case fits in the article at all. But there's also the case of an Indian citizen who self-deported after being accused of being a Hamas supporter[https://www.newsweek.com/columbia-student-self-deports-ice-2045053]. I think we can and probably should add this case somewhere in the article especially as the source also makes a connection to Khalil.

:At some point we may need a 2nd article to cover all of the politically motivated deportations or maybe rewrite this article to cover all of them, should this very first case become effectively a footnote of a much a bigger issue. But I think we're a ways away from having to make that decision. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that it may not be linked to his political views. I only meant to note it as something we might want to follow. Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration is another place where other cases might be noted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::And.... we already have another case, so maybe we will actually need to make a decision soon.

:::"Brown professor, doctor held by customs officials at Boston airport after travel to Lebanon"[https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/03/brown-professor-doctor-held-by-customs-officials-at-boston-airport-after-travel-to-lebanon?fbclid=IwY2xjawJC3NhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHe0f04LOuFvc1cf5vMQaNBkMh7BS4QncwbothUpquPOv_tiQIBgzaW-snw_aem_EXQjIOsyHj_FQF00cbOZTg]

:::Adding a new section to the immigration policy page seems like a solid suggestion to me. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@FactOrOpinion FYI, I just added a new section here for "Activist Deportations"

::::Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration Bob drobbs (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Henry.Jones.03021955 keeps putting back in previously reversed, undiscussed edits. Particularly this paragraph:

Concurrently, under Khalil's 2024 leadership, CUAD as a whole hardened its rhetoric against Zionism and Israel in ways that critics described as sympathetic with Hamas and promoting violence. This included withdrawing an apology for a then-member's statement that "Zionists do not deserve to live...y'all are lucky I'm not out there murdering Zionists," distributing pamphlets praising the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, and publishing an editorial lauding a deadly October 2024 shooting in Tel Aviv.[32][33][34]These statements were not attributed to any particular members, including Khalil.

[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Henry.Jones.03021955&page=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&server=enwiki&max= Here are all of this users page edits]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1280663018 Addition 1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1280570519 Addition 2]

Please discuss these changes here first, before re-adding or re-removing them. For clarity, I did not reverse these edits. Mason7512 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:These re-adding/re-removals appear to have also reverted some miscellaneous intermediate edits/corrections. Which is an issue. Mason7512 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I just added my own discussion of this below! satkara❈talk 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm glad someone else noticed Mason7512 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"under Khalil's leadership" seems super problematic unless multiple solid sources support that take. I'd support deleting that immediately.

::::But I do think information about CUAD is important to this case, as the allegations center around it. Info about the group should be included in the article. But, I think it needs to go in it's own section. That would help clarify that it's actions are not necessarily directly tied to or done by Khalil.

::::I just went ahead and made this change. I didn't change any text just moved CUAD info from two different places on the page to one new section. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I replaced the above excerpt with the one it replaced/deleted which covers the actions and allegations against CUAD; we can modify it as needed (also re added some of the changes that were reverted, like Bridges being incorrectly cited as from 1947) Mason7512 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to raise discussion of some reversions by @Henry.Jones.03021955 I noticed today. There's several, so I'll quote each reinstated line (current as of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&oldid=1280667077 this edit]) with a letter for clarity.

Between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=1280663018&oldid=1280659515 these edits]:

• A "When the agents were informed that Khalil, of Palestinian and Syrian nationality and Algerian citizenship, is a lawful permanent resident of the United States in possession of a green card, Khalil was informed this status was also revoked."

::Should the lead say "Khalil was informed this status was also revoked" or that "this status would be revoked instead"?

::The cited [https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 source] says "Greer said she spoke by phone with one of the ICE agents during the arrest, who said they were acting on State Department orders to revoke Khalil’s student visa. Informed by the attorney that Khalil was in the United States as a permanent resident with a green card, the agent said they were revoking that instead", and Khalil's statement says agents were [https://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-arrests-palestinian-activist-green-card-columbia-university/story?id=119616144 surprised] to learn he had a green card.

• B "On Monday March 10, US District Judge of New York Jesse Furman halted the Trump administration's attempt to deport Khalil so that its constitutionality may be subject to judicial review and on Wednesday March 12 he extended that block by written order following a hearing in Manhattan federal court."

:: I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=prev&oldid=1280631872 changed this] to align with the cited [https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-hold-hearing-over-columbia-student-protesters-challenge-arrest-2025-03-12/ source] (Here is a [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/03/13/world/politics/judge-ban-columbia-student-deportation-us/ JapanTimes] repost of the Reuters article without paywall) which says "U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman had temporarily blocked Mahmoud Khalil's deportation earlier this week, and extended the prohibition on Wednesday in a written order following a hearing in Manhattan federal court to allow himself more time to consider whether the arrest was unconstitutional.

:: In this context, I believe it's important to understand whether Furman is considering whether the *arrest* is unconstitutional or the *deportation*. This reversion also reinstated a run on sentence.

• C "A Department of Homeland Security document described Khalil as a native of Syria and a citizen of Algeria."

:: I added this sentence originally but it was changed after a talk page discussion directly above.

• D File:Notice to Appear Mahmoud Khalil.jpg was reinstated as an image

::This was removed by @FactOrOpinion per WP:BLPPRIMARY

• E The subsection "Religious Based Groups" was reverted to "Jewish people and organizations"

::I believe this was changed following previous talk page discussions about WP:DUE.

• F This one might be trickiest. How should we appropriately integrate criticism of CUAD? The changes I made between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=1280620024&oldid=1280608816 these edits] were all reverted. The reversion reinstated The New York War Crimes and Haaretz as sources instead of The Washington Post, re-adding "under Khalil's 2024 leadership", a quote by a different member of CUAD, and more.

::I thought combining CUAD's stated goals with it's criticisms in one paragraph was the best way of maintaining WP:NPOV. I'm okay adding more critiques, such as support of the October 2024 shooting, which I only cut for brevity. However, I think it's important to distinguish CUAD as a group vs Kahlil. Khalil denies he's a leader of CUAD - [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj5nlxz44yo BBC] satkara❈talk 21:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• G [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=1280667077&oldid=1280664118 this edit]. I reverted despite BRR because WP:BLP. I think we should include supporter commentary in the lead but "attacks" implies physical impact and the word is nowhere in the linked source, and because he denies he was a leader.

I'll revert C & E in a minute because they've already been discussed, but leaving them here in case anyone has further things to say. satkara❈talk 21:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'd like to point out this user has also re-added content that was previously deleted (which they had originally added). They may have just copy/pasted the version before the reversal, attempting to undo it, causing these issues. Mason7512 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I just fixed E. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:For transparency I edited to fix stuff I accidentally left off - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=prev&oldid=1280684363 here's] that edit satkara❈talk 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

The David Grossman which is mentioned in this article is not the famous author, but another person with the same name. The link to the author's page should be removed.

https://x.com/davidgross_man Igal Rozenberg (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yep. Definitlely seems the notable person with a wiki article is an Israeli of the same name, not the guy in New York.

:As he wasn't the guy in the link, he doesn't seem notable, and I removed him completely. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

[in "Legal Proceedings"]

CHANGE:

Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, though that ruling was reversed by a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address.

TO:

Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno. However, that ruling was reversed by an interim decision of a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address. The court of appeals considered a letter from the Secretary of State conveying "facially reasonable" and "bona fide" reasons for their determination of deportability, as presumptive and sufficient evidence for a non-citizen's deportability under this statute.

SOURCE: {{cite web |title=In re Ruiz Massieu |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/in-re-ruiz-massieu-884873187 |website=vLex |access-date=16 March 2025 |language=English |quote=(2) A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary's determination}}

OVERVIEW:

- Added context in reference to the board discretion the courts afforded to the government from the statute Khalil is facing deportation under

EDIT: Addressing FactOrOpinion's concerns

Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, but her ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on jurisdictional grounds unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address. Following this, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that the Secretary of State’s determination of deportability under the statute is presumptively valid if it is "facially reasonable" and based on a bona fide foreign policy concernFishman, George (March 12, 2025). "Is It Constitutional to Deport the Ringleader of Columbia University's Pro-Hamas Demonstrations?". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved March 12, 2025. [note: this citation is already used in the article (reference 54)]; however, as an Article I tribunal, this decision did not set binding precedent. Mr. Ruiz Massieu did not appeal this to an [[Federal judiciary of the United States|

Article III court]] prior to his death {{cite news |last1=Golden |first1=Tim |title=Mexico's Ex-Drug Chief, Indicted, Is Found Dead in U.S. |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/16/world/mexico-s-ex-drug-chief-indicted-is-found-dead-in-us.html |access-date=9 Setember 2012 |agency=The New York Times |date=September 16 1999}}.

Charliegmc1 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:The court of appeals in the current article text is an Article III court; it's a different kind of court than the board of appeals whose ruling you linked to, which is an Article I court. The current text refers to a ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ([https://casetext.com/case/massieu-v-reno-2 this ruling], written by then Judge Alito) that "We do not reach the merits of the constitutional questions decided by the district court. Instead, we hold that the district lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claims" and Trump Barry must dismiss the case. They further stated that the proper procedure was for the case to be heard by an immigration judge, whose ruling could then be reviewed by a U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals (that's the appeals board whose ruling you linked to), and only after that could the case be heard by an Article III court of appeals: {{tq2|Deportability determinations are made initially by an immigration judge after a formal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. Section(s) 1252(b); 8 C.F.R. Section(s) 242.16(a). If the immigration judge decides that the alien should be deported from the United States, the alien may pursue an administrative appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 C.F.R. Section(s) 242.21. The Board's decision is administratively final unless the case is referred to the Attorney General for review. See 8 C.F.R. 3.1(d)(2), (h). Following final administrative action, the "sole and exclusive procedure" for obtaining judicial review of deportation orders is by direct review in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. §(s) 1105a(a). A court of appeals may review a final order of deportation made against an alien within the United States and "all matters on which the validity of the final order is contingent." ... ... Although the immigration judge is not authorized to consider the constitutionality of the statute, this [Article III] court can hear that challenge upon completion of the administrative proceedings [in the Article I immigration courts].}}

:If his WP article is correct, Mario Ruiz Massieu committed suicide a few months after the Board's ruling, so there was no subsequent appeal of the Board's ruling to an Article III court of appeals. I'll think about whether all of these details are worth going into in this WP article, but even if they are, the text you've proposed doesn't work, as it isn't clear about the difference between Article I and Article III courts, nor does it include the fact that the Board of Appeals ruling could have been appealed back to the Circuit Court of Appeals. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for pointing out my oversight, I'll make an edit to my request now. If you don't think the administrative precedent is relevant enough, or if people are likely to misinterpret it, I'll withdraw my request. Charliegmc1 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Charliegmc1, just a heads up that in the future, if you want to edit your request after someone has already responded to you, it's probably best to make a new request (or at least reset the answered= parameter to "no" and add the new edit at the bottom, where it's easy to see). Once an edit request has been responded to, the respondent sets the answered= parameter to "yes" (meaning "answered"), and editors aren't likely to look at it further. Since I'd responded to you, I'd set the parameter to "yes," and I didn't initially realize that you'd introduced a new request in the same place. I've tried to address your second request, though the text I introduced doesn't completely match your request, as I needed to look up another reference for one part, and your NYT citation made no mention of the case, so it would be considered original research to say anything about appealing the BIA ruling to an Article III court. I left that part out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

I added a legal document as a source. Here {{cite web |last1=Fishman |first1=George |title=Is It Constitutional to Deport the Ringleader of Columbia University’s Pro-Hamas Demonstrations? |url=https://cis.org/Fishman/It-Constitutional-Deport-Ringleader-Columbia-Universitys-ProHamas-Demonstrations |website=cis.org |publisher=Center for Immigration Studies |access-date=16 March 2025 |quote=as long as the secretary of State’s determination was bona-fide and reasonable}} is an updated one Charliegmc1 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, where do you want the source added? Secondly, you reference the Center for Immigration Studies, but, according to Wikipedia, "The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views." I'm inferring that it is not a reliable source and would like to know why you intend to reference it. I'm going to put this request on hold pending your response to these two questions. Thank you for your patience! 1101 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Charliegmc1 stated the change they wanted in the previous section; this was just adding another source (which happens to be a source that is already used as a reference in the article, and it's a reliable source for the WP content that was sourced to it). I've responded above. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for looking over this - I'm new to editing so please forgive small mistakes I've made.

::It might be an anti-immigration think tank, however the article seems largely accurate to me after reading the BIA's decision and Hawaii v. Trump. I was basically using its quotation of the BIA decision rather than a direct legal document, which I have learnt is not allowed a source of WP.

::I will edit my request above instead, as this one is just clunking the page up, and the source will be in the place I mean it to be. Charliegmc1 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

Do we need so much detail on CUAD? As of writing, there's more info here - about how it was founded, who's in it, etc. - than on the columbia protests page. I'm not sure when Khalil joined CUAD, but if I understand the timeline right, the entirety of the second paragraph was prior to CUAD's formation and has seemingly nothing to do with Khalil.

Personally I think combining the 1st and 3rd to 1 paragraph and integrating it into Khalil's participation would be better, with a See Also link to a CUAD section on the Columbia protests page. satkara❈talk 01:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that much of that text isn't DUE for this article. Re: your plans, I'd only keep the first sentence of the first paragraph and combine that with the 3rd paragraph (and move the rest to the Columbia protests article if you want). Adding the See also makes sense. But I'm uncertain about integrating the remaining content into the section on Khalil's participation, because that content has no direct links to him. It's relevant background for why the Admin. went after him, but unless there are RSs saying that he supported the acts in paragraph 3, I'm inclined to keep that in its own section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! It seems like CUAD's messaging is the basis for online campaign against him; eg, quoting the article, this part of the Online Campaign section

::Zeteo reported that those included a "threatening post by the pro-Israel organization Betar in January", in which the group claimed "that he said 'Zionists don’t deserve to live'—a statement Khalil 'unequivocally' denied making

::seems to be referencing this part of the CUAD subsection

::[CUAD] also withdrew an apology it had made for a member who said "Zionists don't deserve to live."

::Keeping it separate makes sense too though, at least until a reliable source makes that connection for us. I'll go forward with your suggestion. satkara❈talk 02:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university.html NY Times] says that accusation against Khalil has no evidence, and the quote is actually attributed to a different CUAD member who was expelled. ^Falling_Gravity 06:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks! While I haven't combined the sections, I integrated that the quote was by a different student as well as other points from the article. satkara❈talk 15:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Currently section Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil#CUAD makes no connection between Khalil and CUAD. I'm afraid the presence of such a detailed section here might insinuate Khalil was responsible for CUAD's actions. fgnievinski (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The Khalil's involvement section makes clear connections between him and the group. So a paragraph giving info about CUAD seems appropriate and necessary for the article:

::::::"[Khalil] served as a negotiator for students associated with Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) ... That investigation involved a number of accusations related to his involvement in CUAD"

::::::For me, having it as a separate sub-section seems to imply that he is not necessarily responsible for all of their actions.

::::::Maybe an improvement could be to adjust the section levels so it's completely separate from his involvement instead of being a sub-section of it? Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've now sourced an allegation Khalil was a "spokesman" for CUDA, which is an official representative position. Previous wording presented Khalil as a "negotiator", which gave me the impression his position was more neutral (like a "mediator"). fgnievinski (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change:

The article uses the phrase "aligned with" when citing the govt statement, but the actual phrasing is "aligned to". This is important because the phrase is not common English and "to" is even more broad than "with". Ref https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1898908955675357314

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=ORIGINAL_TEXT|2=CHANGED_TEXT}} Curdflappers (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:sorry, new here, of course the original text should be "aligned with" and the changed text should be "aligned to" Curdflappers (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Not by me, but I searched the article for "aligned" and it appears to have been corrected with "aligned to". If there's anything I missed lmk but I'll mark this done for now. Thank you! satkara❈talk 18:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

A classmate of Khalil claimed that she filed two complaints with the school, said she was afraid of him, and said she dropped a class because the school refused to do anything about it.

These sources are not reliable enough by wikipedia standards, but please be on the lookout for better sources.

Also, if these alleged complaints to the school are a matter of public record, perhaps there is a way to use those public records as well.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/15/us-news/columbia-anti-israel-protester-mahmoud-khalil-had-hatred-for-jewish-state-ex-classmate/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/safer-without-him-columbia-student-claims-classmate-arrested-ice-hates-america

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is just an embellished account of the opinion of one student, retold in an exaggerated tone by two notoriously unreliable sources (tabloids, basically). I believe the biographies of living persons guidelines alone would prohibit the inclusion of such material.

:To me, this reeks of the [https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28929087 'no angel' pieces] some US outlets published in response to shootings of Black citizens. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I recommend we state in the lead that the United States has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

But at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&oldid=1281746693 23:21, 21 March 2025] إيان reverted my edit as "WP:UNDUE". My edit was to change the mention of "Hamas" in the lead to "Hamas, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization".

The full lead sentence is: "The detention is the first publicly known deportation effort related to pro-Palestine activism under President Donald Trump, who has threatened to punish students and others he says support Hamas or promote antisemitism."

My reasoning:

- In the Associated Press citation for this lead sentence, it says: "McLaughlin [a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security] signaled the arrest was directly connected to Khalil’s role in the protests, alleging he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

- The citation also says: "The Department of Homeland Security can initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders for a broad range of alleged criminal activity, including supporting a terror group."

- The body of the article says: "Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Troy Edgar defended the detention. When asked to explain what conduct merited Khalil's removal from the U.S., and specifically how Khalil had supported Hamas, Edgar said, "I think if he would have declared he's a terrorist, we would have never let him in"

- The body of the article also says: "Twenty congressional Republicans gave statements to the Washington Reporter, lauding the Trump administration's effort to deport people they see as terrorist sympathizers."

So, I believe that it is NOT "undue" to mention that the United States has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Please approve. ReferenceMan (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:It is quoted and attributed in the source. It's not WP:DUE for the introduction. إيان (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's easy to find sources stating that the government designates Hamas a terrorist organization, which has been the case since 1997, so it's not that relevant that the current sources for the lead only include that info in a quote, as we can add another source or replace one of the current ones.

::The government has repeatedly contextualized the attempted revocation of Khalil's green card by alleging that he supports Hamas and identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization. Trump has also stated his goal of deporting other “terrorist sympathizers." We should probably say a bit more about this context in the body.

::Re: the AP saying "The Department of Homeland Security can initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders for a broad range of alleged criminal activity, including supporting a terror group," that was written shortly after he was arrested, and we've since learned that the government doesn't allege that he's engaged in any criminal activity. My sense is also that by "alleged criminal activity, including supporting a terror group," they're referring to material support. The government isn't alleging material support.

::I don't feel strongly that it should be added to the lead, but neither do I object to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The lead isn't supposed to be some random collection of info. It's supposed to be a short summary of highlights of the article. If we don't say Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization in the body of the article, it shouldn't be in the lead.

:::But I do think it should be in the body somewhere as it's a key piece of the story that Hamas has been labeled a a foreign terrorist organizations by the USA since 1997.

:::So maybe figure out where it belongs in the article, then revisit if it belongs in the lead? Bob drobbs (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/breaking-big-is-mahmoud-khalil-is-british-spook/ 2600:4041:5E47:F100:CD20:743E:D5C5:3AA0 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:The Gateway Pundit is a deprecated source. Get your information from better sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two cases to keep track of. One is the habeas corpus case in federal court that started in SDNY, and is continuing in DNJ. The other case is before an immigration court and has started in LA. An immigration court is an Article I court rather than Article III court and cannot address constitutional questions. I do not know whether immigration court cases are named/numbered in some standard way, and I don't know whether the immigration court judge will be identified, as federal judges are. Just noting this here in case there should really be two different court infoboxes, one for the federal case and one for the immigration court case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:So what is [https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/mahmoud-khalil-v-donald-j-trump this case] and why does Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce supersede it for the infobox? إيان (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's the habeas corpus case, filed in an Article III court. Khalil v. Joyce and Khalil v. Trump are the same case. When Greer first filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 3/9, it didn't name Trump or Rubio, and she didn't know the basis for the attempted deportation. The petition was amended on 3/13 to include Trump and Rubio as well, and to address the fact that the government had subsequently said that it planned to use 237(a)(4)(C)(i). Additional lawyers / legal groups had joined Khalil's team by that point, including lawyers from NYCLU, whose site you linked to. That case was initially filed in SDNY and heard by Judge Furman (you can see 1:25-cv-01935-JMF for both the initial petition and the amended petition). It was transferred to DNJ and will be heard by Judge Farbiarz (2:25-cv-01963-MEF/3:25-cv-01963, I don't know why it's being listed under two different case numbers). I'm not the one who changed the case title in the infobox for the Article III case from Khalil v. Trump to Khalil v. Joyce in the infobox; I only removed "Detention of Mahmoud Khalil" from the infobox, because that's the WP article title, not the case title. I also removed the duplicate infobox for the single Article III case.

::What I'm pointing out is that there's another case taking place in an immigration court (an Article I court), about the deportation rather than the detention. Article I courts cannot address constitutional issues. The paragraph starting with "In Massieu v. Reno (1996), ..." in the Legal analysis section has a bit about these two kinds of courts in a previous case involving 237(a)(4)(C)(i). I do not know the name of the case in the immigration court (it might only be named something like In re Mahmoud Khalil), nor the name of the judge hearing it. If we can find out that info, we should probably add a second infobox about the Article I case. The immigration court case is the one where the government has now made new allegations about Khalil having omitted info when he applied for his green card.

::We need to be paying attention to both the Article I and Article III cases. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for this excellent and informative explanation. Should we move the infobox back to Khalil v. Trump? Should we make another infobox for the other cases? إيان (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::As best I can tell, Khalil v. Joyce et al. is still the formal name of the case, even though the NYCLU is calling it Khalil v. Trump (for example, if you look at the [https://www.nyclu.org/uploads/2025/03/078-Opinion-and-Order-in-Part-Denying-and-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Transfer.pdf most recent] document they've uploaded, it still names Joyce as the first defendant, not Trump). But I'm not a lawyer, and maybe I'm wrong and the case has been renamed. As for another infobox, we don't have much information to go on. Here's the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 original notice] to appear. And here's the [https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3ll3iljaq2k22 updated notice]. (I haven't seen a large version uploaded by a news organization, or if I did, I've already forgotten where.) Those don't tell us a case name or case number or judge's name. I guess we could create an infobox identifying the case as being in the immigration court and perhaps name it In the matter of Mahmoud Khalil, since both the original and updates notices say that. I'll ask WikiProject law. FWIW, he's [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doj-says-mahmoud-khalil-didnt-disclose-involvement-palestinian-groups-rcna197745 apparently represented] by Marc Van Der Hout for the immigration case, and as best I can tell, Van Der Hout is not associated with any of the organizations representing Khalil in the habeas corpus case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Bob drobbs, in the info you added about today's immigration court hearing, you cited ABC News for their claim that one of the allegations was "You are a native of Syria and a citizen of Algeria", and that Van Der Hout said "deny" to all. But according to his own [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/38/mahmoud-khalil-v-william-p-joyce/ habeas petition], it's true that Khalil is a native of Syria and a citizen of Algeria (and I know we can't use that as a source in the article, but it's still relevant to assessing the reliability of the news reporting). I'm going to take that part out, as I cannot find any other news agency confirming it; we can add it back in if it turns out that somehow their reporting about this part was correct. Just explaining why I'm doing it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::@FactOrOpinion I realized that and thought about putting a comment here on the talk page.

::But I _think_ there's no conflict between the two claims. I _think_ Khalil's lawyer was denying that "You are a native of Syria and a citizen of Algeria" was a valid ground to deport Khalil. I don't think he was denying this was a true fact.

::I don't have any strong objection about temporarily deleting this until we get more clarity, but I also don't think it's an issue. Bob drobbs (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hey FactOrOpinion and Bob drobbs, could I ask you two for some assistance in cleaning up the infobox situation? What is the case in which the Louisisana judge Jamee E. Comans pronounced Khalil deportable? Can we get the infobox(es) to clarify this? إيان (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::A few weeks ago, I asked at WikiProject Law about an infobox for the immigration court case, and this was the reply. I think the best we could do would be:

::::{{Infobox court case |name=Matter of Khalil |court=Immigration court, Executive Office for Immigration Review |date decided=April 11, 2025 |judges=Jamee E. Comans |number of judges=1 |opinions=The United States can deport Khalil under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. |appealed to=Board of Immigration Appeals}}

::::FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for looking into it! So this infobox would go beneath the current one? إيان (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'd be inclined to put it in the Immigration court subsection of the Legal proceedings section. But I think it would be OK to place it beneath the current one if you prefer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, I'll put it in the immigration court subsection of legal proceedings. Thank you. إيان (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

• What I think should be changed: In the second paragraph of "Reactions":

{{TextDiff|Mercedes Schlapp expressed support for Khalil's arrest and said Rashida Talib should be deported, though Talib is a natural-born U.S. citizen from Detroit.|Mercedes Schlapp expressed support for Khalil's arrest and said Rashida Tlaib should be deported, though Tlaib is a natural-born U.S. citizen from Detroit.}}

• Why it should be changed: On Wikipedia and in most media sources, her name is spelled 'Tlaib'.
• References supporting the possible change: WP:COMMONNAME, [https://tlaib.house.gov/ Her official website]

Eelmealdeal (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

:Done. Thanks for having noticed the error. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|Manuductive|spi=Lardlegwarmers}}

The laws pertain to aliens, not "non-citizens", as the latter category includes non-citizen nationals of the US, who are not subject to deportation under the DoS foreign policy prerogative. Manuductive (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:What are you referring to specifically, and why did you post this on the talk page? Are you trying to request an edit? Mason7512 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, the article is full of mistaken instances where various laws are said to apply to "non-citizens", which is not accurate. Manuductive (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think he is referring to the fact that some people are US nationals but not US citizens (most notably American Samoans). US nationals who are not also citizens can live in the US proper (though that is a privilege that could be revoked by the US government) but cannot vote in US elections. They can get US passports. Filipinos prior to independence in 1946 were US nationals. Those resident in the US effective became resident aliens though another law passed in 1946 did allow those in this group to apply for full US citizenship (previously they could not). Even prior to losing their status as US nationals the quota allowed for Filipino US nationals to immigrate to the US (post 1934) had been 50 per year. Erp (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Correct. So, for example, the section on legal analysis states:{{tq2|Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Cold War-era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides that a non-citizen can be deported if the Secretary of State believes their presence risks "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."}} This would entail that a non-citizen national of the US could be deported which is absolutely ridiculous and makes this article look like whoever wrote it has no idea what they're talking about. Manuductive (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Your statement is outdated though. All US nationals have the right to travel and live in the US. They are not immigrants and do not need a visa. Their entry to the continental US is not restricted. The chief difference is that they cannot work for the government in jobs requiring citizenship and they can't vote.[https://govassist.com/blog/us-nationals-vs-us-citizens-uncovering-the-key-differences-for-travelers] EDIT: Congress could change the law to restrict non-citizen nationals, but the law currently does not do so.Manuductive (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The language is probably due to many sources that are GREL referring to non-citizens rather than aliens. But GREL sources are sometimes incorrect, and given that the law itself refers to aliens, nothing is stopping you from correcting it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I went ahead and took care of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Detention of Mahmoud Khalil|answered=yes}}

In paragraph three it says the INA may be used to deport “migrants” in later usages - under legal proceedings - it says to it can be used to deport “lawful residents.” I suggest in the first instance “migrants” be changed to “individuals” 24.190.240.49 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Individuals" is too broad, as the relevant section of the INA addresses "aliens." I've updated "lawful residents" to "aliens who are in the country legally." We can certainly change "migrants" to "aliens" if you think that would be better. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think “aliens” is certainly better than “migrants” in this context and given how “migrants” tends to be used in current us immigration discourse and that here, specifically, Khalil, before obtaining a green card, was a foreign student on a student visa. 24.190.240.49 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tick}} Done. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"the Cold War–era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" is not appropriate in the light of WP:EDITORIALIZING. "Cold War-era" should be struck off. 5h3c1J (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:It isn't. It's referred to that way in several discussions in the media: an [https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/14/congress-democrats-mahmoud-khalil-00230573 example]. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Cold War–era" is an objective fact. You have not explained how WP:EDITORIALIZING justifies "not appropriate". The statement "in the light of" contains no useful information.

:Associated Press' [https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-palestinian-protests-dfd8b3cf3b8bc4ee3e980bdc83482cac reporting] includes phrases like

:- "amid the anti-communist fears of the early Cold War"

:- "codified rules allowing ideology to be used to deny immigration and allow deportation"

:Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, of course it's written like that in reporting - that's where editorializing comes from. Wikipedia, however, is not a newspaper, and should refrain from using terms that "highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion". Cold war-era is read as implying that the statue in question is old, outdated, a relic, or inappropriate, which violates impartial tone. 5h3c1J (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Was the legislation from the Cold War? Do sources think that's relevant info? Then it's fine. If the sources didn't mention this, or it was wrong, then I could see the issue. Lewisguile (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@5h3c1J, quoting an excerpt out of context is counterproductive. The full sentence you excerpted from says "Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone." It implies nothing about the factual (not an opinion) that this 1952 law is Cold War-era. Here's a [https://time.com/4656940/donald-trump-immigration-order-1952/ discussion] of the historical context for the law's enactment. Here's [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act another] from the State Dept's historian. It's also easy to find peer-reviewed journal articles about the INA that mention this fact. You find it inappropriate; many others don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Whether something is true or not is not relevant in determining that editorializing has taken place. I would hope most things on Wikipedia are true and yes, the Cold War was an era that spanned many years one of which was 1952. But using the term to characterize a piece of legislation, or anything for that matter, is editorializing, as it betrays the intention of the author to slant the article in a certain direction (disapproval of the legislation, in this case). 5h3c1J (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You've misunderstood my point. Editorializing involves opinions, not facts. True statements are facts, not opinions. FactOrOpinion (talk) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::In addition to what @FactOrOpinion said, the detail itself doesn't necessarily add a slant. If the law were described as "McCarthyist", for example, that might be. "Cold War–era" on its own is not a value judgment; it simply conveys when the law was created. Lewisguile (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

2601:586:4600:4A90:E45D:BD52:3761:AE4C (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe, but that's a long ways off. This will probably be appealed to immigration appeals and then the federal court system. satkara❈talk 21:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I was previously reverted for making a clarification on CUAD "praising Hamas". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=prev&oldid=1281464655

That is the claim made in the Washington Post, linking to a Substack post by CUAD as evidence, but the linked post does not show CUAD praising Hamas, it reports that a person at a reading group made statements praising Hamas and does not make a value judgement on that.

I feel at the very least we need to state that it is the Washington Post making the claim that CUAD "praised Hamas", but the paper's own direct evidence from CUAD does not support their claim, nor have I been able to find any evidence of CUAD overtly praising Hamas. SFB 03:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I fundamentally agree with you but also I think this boarders from WP:OR Czarking0 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Sillyfolkboy thanks for explaining. Wikipedia is supposed to abstain from analysis of primary sources and instead report what secondary sources report, but I see what you're saying. However, in the section above where it addresses the reading group, the substack says "We are approaching one year since the genocide of Palestinians escalated following resistance led by Hamas against Israel’s continued violent occupation", referring to October 7, and says "key resistance leaders, including Hamas's Haniyeh, Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and Iranian military figures", so I would call the WP's reporting accurate. I would be supportive of adding "According to the Washington Post..." though, and incorporating a source defensive of CUAD. satkara❈talk 15:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see how these quotes support the assertion by WP, this seems even more subjective and WP:OR. I support going with "According to the Washington Post..." for now though. Mason7512 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The post frames the actions of hamas and hezbollah as resistance against oppression, which is difficult to read otherwise. They seem to be supportive of the idea (in [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/us/columbia-pro-palestine-group-apology/index.html their words]) that "Where you’ve exhausted all peaceful means of resolution, violence is the only path forward." But I agree and added the "According to WP" and I'm open to other suggestions too. satkara❈talk 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|" nor have I been able to find any evidence of CUAD overtly praising Hamas "}}

::::It does feel a bit like WP:OR but here's more of what you can find on their substack if you scroll through it:

:::::"COMMEMORATING AL-AQSA FLOOD: LESSONS ON GUERRILLA WARFARE"[https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/commemorating-al-aqsa-flood-honoring]

:::::"Sinwar later became the architect of two of the greatest moments of Palestinian resistance in the past decade: 2018's Great March of Return and last year's Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. He understood, maybe better than anyone else, that there was a time and a necessity for all forms of resistance. ... Sinwar's crowning achievement, Al-Aqsa Flood..."[https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/cuad-remains-committed-to-our-demands]

::::Bob drobbs (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Re: the Substack, that particular entry was dated 10/3/24. Was Khalil still working with CUAD at that point? If not, then I don't see how that content is relevant background for this article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Do we know what when Khalil stopped working with CUAD? Bob drobbs (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@FactOrOpinion he was still speaking on behalf of protestors in [https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-propalestinian-gaza-protests-980e22266c6a6d1c86b670a3d6be655a September 2024], and was seen liaising with administrators in [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university.html March 2025] ("Videos on social media depict him at the library holding a megaphone — and, at one point, using it to amplify the Barnard president, who is speaking over a cellphone.") But neither source makes it clear which org he was speaking on behalf of. satkara❈talk 21:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks @Satkara. Those dates are useful.

::::And while this talk section is about CUAD. The article really doesn't have a ton about Khalil's actual involvement in the protests/CUAD. I just added a quote from that September AP News article. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not gone through the article in detail, but I have the feeling in large parts, its missing the woods for all the trees?

Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and this is in fact a more widespread issue atm here (at the 'Pedia) - and the Trump Administrations crackdown on basic democratic freedoms is not actually being called out for what it is ? (sure, needs to be sourced - but I'm pretty sure I've seen that discussed in a number of places...).

Just to pick one example out (it caught my eye, and moved me to opening this section): "Khalil's arrest occurred during a period of heightened federal scrutiny of Columbia University." A "period of heightened federal scrutiny", seriously ? Like, if there is "heightened federal scrutiny" then it is essentially of the entire sector of higher education / universities, no ?!

Ok, I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some of the text was written in early March, right after he was arrested. We now know more about the Trump admin's attacks on the legal profession, higher ed in general, and foreign students in particular, especially if they espouse any pro-Palestinian support (all relevant to its "crackdown on basic democratic freedoms"). Is this appropriately discussed in background, given that these things have largely occurred after he was arrested? Maybe, but we'd need to think about how to present it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Khalil was born in a refugee camp in Damascus, Syria in 1995 to Palestinian refugees from Tiberias" - Palestinians left Tiberias in April 1948. Were Khalil's Parents born before that? 46.121.213.152 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Generally, Palestinian refugee status is inherited- colloquially and legally (if certain conditions are met, which are in his parent's circumstances). But, according to him, his father was born as his grandmother was fleeing their home near Tiberias. Are you trying to make an edit request? Mason7512 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::"Palestinian refugees from Tiberias" implies his parents left Tiberias in 1948. I understand this is not the case, since they were born in Syria. I would recommend a more accurate phrasing. 46.121.213.152 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't know where his parents were born. Besides that, "from" is not synonymous with "born in", and is often used to describe someone's background/heritage, this is particularly so when it comes to Palestinian refugees who have a strong connection to their ancestral land. I think it's appropriate (especially considering we don't know much of his familial background, so we cannot state specifics), but others can provide their opinions too. Mason7512 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We could change it to something like "Khalil was born in a refugee enclave in Damascus, Syria, in 1995, to Palestinian parents. His grandparents had lived in Tiberias, but were forced to leave in the 1948 Nakba." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That works, it's a straight forward stating of what the current understanding of his background is. Seems to resolve the concerns expressed. Mason7512 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, this would be more accurate. The previous version was misleading. 46.121.213.152 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Both the New York Times and NY Post refer to this quote:

"We've tried armed resistance, which is legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism."[https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/detained-columbia-university-agitator-mahmoud-khalil-is-a-former-british-embassy-worker/][https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university.html]

Here's a link to the video to confirm it was accurately quoted:

https://x.com/Davidlederer6/status/1899501664580571423

And here's a tweet from Ken Roth regarding the quote:

"Mahmoud Khalil is quoted as saying “armed resistance” to Israeli occupation is “legitimate under international law.” That doesn’t make him a “terrorist” so long as resistance is directed at soldiers, not civilians. Only attacking civilians is a war crime."

https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1901242204494205380

It looks like it's notable enough to go into the article, but thoughts on how to cover it? Bob drobbs (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The quotes differ a bit in the two sources:

:NYT: "'They — we — have tried armed resistance, which is, again, legitimate under international law.' But Israel calls it terrorism, he said."

:NY Post: “we’ve tried armed resistance, which is legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism.”

:I found it a little hard to hear him clearly in the video, but my transcription is "Palestinians have tried multiple forms of resistance, w-, whether it is armed, unarmed resistance, peaceful, whatever. But Israel and their propaganda always find, like, something to attack. Like they -, we've tried armed resistance, which is, again, legitimate under international law, but in Israel it is an -, it is, uh, terrorism. We've tried [can't make it out]."

:The two NYT and NY Post also link to different sources: the NYT to the Lederer tweet and the NY Post to an Instagram account that identified itself as the "Jew Hate Database." I haven't been able to find the original source of the video. In both cases, I find myself wondering about what he said before and after their clip. If he said "again," that implies that he was referring to something that had already been said, whether by him or someone else. I haven't been able to find a longer video excerpt. (I'm bringing this up only in the context of whether we can find an RS with a longer video. None of what I've said is relevant to article content, as it would be OR.)

:"We" clearly refers to Palestinians, not Hamas; the NYT makes that clear, but the Post doesn't (and the Post is deprecated anyway). Here is the WP article discussing Palestinian right of armed resistance, and the sources there agree with Ken Roth that armed resistance to soldiers is legal under international law, but indiscriminate killing of civilians is not (which is why Israel is accused of war crimes). But we cannot use the Ken Roth tweet per BLPSPS, even though he's arguably an expert. It's not clear to me that it's DUE, but if it's going to be introduced into the article, I'd either paraphrase or quote it as "[Palestinians] have tried ...," sourced to the NYT and wikilinked to a relevant article, which might be the one above or maybe there's another that just discusses the general issue of when armed resistance is/isn't legal per international law. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't realize that NY Post had been deprecated. It's also an op-ed in Jewish New Service, but I wouldn't use an op-ed as a source for this. I'll just drop this unless additional solid RS appear. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My mistake, the NY Post is only "generally unreliable" rather than deprecated. Still, not a good source. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Adjusting last sentence of second paragraph for clarity and readability

Diff: Reworded final sentence for clarity and conciseness; replaced passive phrasing with active subject ("a federal district court") and streamlined structure.

{{TextDiff|1=However, orders from the ongoing district court case prevent Khalil's deportation while it, questioning the constitutionality of his arrest and detention, remains active.|2=However, a federal district court has issued a stay on Khalil's deportation while it considers a case challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention.}} Elirockenbeck1 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Elirockenbeck1 {{done}}, nicer wording. I added the word "separate" to help clarify further. satkara❈talk 18:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, and good call that's even better. Elirockenbeck1 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps refer to "1948 Arab–Israeli War" instead? SiberianTruth (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} Israel's Nakba Law doesn't apply to Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Sean.hoyland, you’re right in the larger point, but unless I’m missing something due to lack of sleep, the NYT source doesn’t use the term, and CNN only uses it as an attributed term. Maybe a different phrasing might be a genuine improvement? FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The CNN article doesn't attribute the term (ex. "during what blank ___ call(s) the Nakba "), it says "[description] in what became known as 'The Nakba'" . That seems more like a stylistic choice used to introduce readers to the term than an editorial choice to me. Besides, even if NYT doesn't use the term, it is describing it, so I don't think it matters. The Nakba isn't a framing of an event, but the name of an event as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Mason7512 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Palestinians were forcibly removed from cities like Tiberias in what became known as “The Nakba,” or catastrophe.}} can be linked to 1948 Arab–Israeli War or 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, both of which are more neutral terms than Nakba, which is highly contested. Or would you be in favour of using Israeli War of Independence just because a source does? FortunateSons (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|His grandparents were from a village near Tiberias, a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee in Palestine before it became part of the state of Israel. They were forced to flee in 1948 during the wars preceding Israel’s establishment, Mr. Khalil has said, settling with other members of their large family in southern Damascus in Syria, in a Palestinian refugee enclave.}} this is what a neutral phrasing would look like, as used by the NYT. FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Unless you are arguing that the Khalil's grandparents move from Palestine to Syria was not a part of the events which the word 'Nakba' is used to describe, your core problem seems to be with the word Nakba being used in wiki voice at all. As seen in the Nakba article and its talk page discussions, the Nakba is referred to as an event (not a theory or framing) stated in wiki voice on Wikipedia. The article Nakba denial even utilizes wiki voice. Will all these things being so, I do not see how we can acknowledge that the Nakba was an event yet at the same time not allow the word's use when describing the event itself in other articles, even if it is "contested". Not using it when we are referring to it seems like a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV imo. Mason7512 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My core argument is that we should align with the use of the sources, including controversial terms such a Nakba (historically also within Palestinian society, btw). The events that are considered part of the Nakba obviously happened, but the term is obviously more contentious than a description, while providing less information to an informed reader. “forced to flee in 1948 during the wars preceding Israel’s establishment”, linking to any of the articles above, is clearly superior compared to “forced to leave in the 1948 Nakba”, if nothing else because the latter makes no distinction between expulsion and flight. FortunateSons (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm indifferent to the perceived contentiousness of the word. I don't think that's our battle. It's widely used in English language sources as a label for the events. If its presence is contentiousness to some, so is its absence. There is presumably a sentence that prioritizes being informative over sensitivities to language. Something close to the CNN line "During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Palestinians were forcibly removed from cities like Tiberias in what became known as “The Nakba,” or catastrophe." with all the helpful links out to articles, helpful attribution, helpful alternative terms (e.g. Israeli War of Independence) seems like the approach with the most utility for readers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Perhaps: {{tq|[Person] left/fled/was forced to flee/was displaced/was expelled from [place] during the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, also known as the Israeli war of independence and the Nakba.}} FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What would be good is if a sentence could be constructed that found sufficient consensus at a centralized RfC or something that could become a standard statement deployed across Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agreed, that would be quite useful. FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Use of Nakba is not non-neutral. The CNN source also uses the term. Adding in extra language veers on WP:EUPHEMISMistic, and I don't see consensus here to change the language. Lewisguile (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not that this is determinative, but as best I can tell, all of the reporting about Khalil's grandparents forcible displacement from Tiberias came from Khalil's own statements about it, and he refers to the Nakba, for example, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SOdNO-XdEY here]. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)