Talk:Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Article by Zeteo

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,[1] The Patriot-News,[2] Rolling Stone,[3], and The Guardian [4]; it is edited by Mehdi Hasan[5] 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 [6], Factcheck.org [7], or, Lead Stories [8]; 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)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [9][10] 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)

Clarifying survey

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Zionist Organizations?"

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)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the arrest of a pro-Palestinian activist was described as "[reeking] of McCarthyism"?

• Source: Shapiro, Eliza (2025-03-09). "ICE Arrests Pro-Palestinian Activist at Columbia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-03-10.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Toward European Unity

Created by إيان (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC).

• @LunaEclipse: Hook rather relies on knowing what McCarthyism is, which I don't (perhaps it's an American thing?). What else do you suggest?--Launchballer 15:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Launchballer: ALT1: ... that a pro-Palestinian activist was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents despite being a permanent resident in the country?
    • (per comments below) ALT1a: ... that a pro-Palestinian activist was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents despite being a documented immigrant?
  • For context (referring to ALT0), McCarthyism was an anti-communist moral panic in 1950s America. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Full review needed.--Launchballer 15:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This hook still demands some U.S.-specific knowledge—that it's unusual or remarkable for the US ICE to arrest permanent residents, and more broadly what the legal designation of "permanent resident" means. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

TBF, I can reword the "permanent resident" part, but I still believe putting out the full name of the org makes it pretty blatant; additionally, Trump's deportation efforts received some international coverage ([11][12][13]), so I expect a non-US reader to know surface-level info about ICE. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I also had not heard of the organisation, but knew instinctively what they did.--Launchballer 12:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This could potentially be combined with the Bridges v. Wixon nom below for a nice double hook. Bremps... 02:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's see a hook. Courtesy ping to @Chetsford:.--Launchballer 03:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to combining the two but am agnostic on the point. While the two subjects are closely related, Bridges v. Wixon is not explicitly mentioned in the OP article so it might require some creativity to draft a hook that did not delve into original legal analysis. I'll defer to everyone else to decide. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the recent detention of legal immigrant Mahmoud Khalil has been compared to the 1945 case Bridges v. Wixon? Bremps... 03:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It'll need an end-of-sentence citation and I'd consider adding "the documented immigrant" or somesuch for interest purposes. (Is it 1945 or 1947?)--Launchballer 13:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

My bad, it was '45. Feel free to make changes to the hook— the information is fully cited in the article. Bremps... 14:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the recent detention of legal immigrant Mahmoud Khalil raises the same constitutional questions as a 1945 court case? Bremps... 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: "Was described as" feels like a weasle word to me. It would be more notable if the source of the quote was mentioned in the hook to add a level of notability aside from, "Someone said X could be Y." GGOTCC (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This article, created on 10 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. QPQ done. I've also reviewed Bridges v. Wixon at the nom. There is not a consensus that the hook fact has to be in both articles for a multi-hook like this, so its sufficient that its in Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, but it would be nice if someone added a paragraph about the detention to Bridges v. Wixon. I like ALT3 (ALT2 goes a bit beyond the article), but I'd modify it a little so it hews closer to Strossen's comments:

ALT3b: ... that the recent detention of legal immigrant Mahmoud Khalil raises similar constitutional questions to a 1945 court case?

ALT3c: ... that the recent detention of legal immigrant Mahmoud Khalil raises constitutional questions about the free speech rights of immigrants discussed in a 1945 court case?

Pinging involved editors @LunaEclipse, Chetsford, Launchballer, and Bremps: for their opinion on these hooks. ALT3c may need a new reviewer (per WP:DYKRR) if people like it. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Tom Homan's response

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:

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)

Merge complete, please review

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2025

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.

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

References

No statements on the fact that there are no allegations of criminal acts ?

.. 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 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 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)

Cited source does not back up claim

"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)

Revert - And why was Columbia investigating Khalil.

Here's the claim which in the article and it is reflected by the source here[14]:

"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. 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:

−

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)

Analysis Section

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)

Federal Court Proceedings

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 request 13 March 2025

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:

−

That investigation involved several allegations related to his involvement in CUAD and his alleged help in organizing a march that reportedly "glorified the [[October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel|attacks on October 7]]" and criticized [[Zionism]].

+

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 [[October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel|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)

Warrant

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)

Undid edit

I undid an edit adding Khalil's citizenship and said I'd post here to discuss - but immediately after, saw 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 request 14 March 2025

Description of suggested change:

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

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

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)

Sub-sections within the Reactions section

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)

A useful document

We can't use court documents as sources in the article, but the 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 becoming very long

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2025

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)

Timeline

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

Algerian Citizenship

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. [15].

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)

Addressing new cases

As of yesterday, another green card holder (German citizen) is in ICE custody for 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 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[16]. 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"[17]

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)

Repeated undiscussed additions/removals after reversal

@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.

Here are all of this users page edits Addition 1 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)

Discussion of reversions

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 this edit) with a letter for clarity.

Between 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 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 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 changed this to align with the cited source (Here is a 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 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 - BBC satkara❈talk 21:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• G 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 - here's that edit satkara❈talk 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2025 (2) Important context on appellate decision in massieu v. reno

[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:

OVERVIEW: - Italicised Massieu v. Reno - Made clear that the decision by the appellate court was in interim one - 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 concern [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 Article III court prior to his death . 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 (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:

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 to previous request

I added a legal document as a source. Here 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)

CUAD detail?

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)

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)

Edit request 18 March 2025

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:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

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)

Statement from one of his classmates

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)